Accountability Systems and Counting Students with Disabilities
State
|
Includes Students with
Disabilities
|
Alabama |
On a
press release found on the state department site (dated June 23, 1999),
it stated, “For the second year, all special education students taking
the test had their scores included in the school, system and state
summaries. The 1999 results include 49,794 special education students
and exclude no students who took the test.” However, in the subsequent paragraph
it goes on to say ”Special education students’ scores are not included
in classifying a school or system as Academic Clear, Academic Caution or
Academic Alert.” A phone call to the person in charge of student
assessment in June 1999 verified that students with disabilities were
not included in the accountability system. |
Alaska |
Scores
are listed as including “all students.”
No further information nor data were found to support or
contradict this statement. |
Arizona |
The
Arizona Dept. of Education site emphasizes over and over that
accountability is for all students: |
Arkansas |
On a
separate document from the Arkansas Dept. of Education
entitled “Student Assessment Program” dated Fall, 1999,
there is information about test administration and special
needs students.
It states: “The norming population of the Stanford
Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, included students who were
receiving special education and related services, and who
were able to take the tests under standardized conditions.
Therefore, all students in grade 5,7, and 10 should be
tested except those for whom this type of test is clearly
inappropriate. The individual education (IEP) team
must determine whether a student with disabilities receiving
special education and related services can take the test
under standardized conditions or with allowable
accommodations”. Later in the same document (page 50)
is found the following:
“In order for a student’s scores to be excluded from all
summary data, Column H or I should be coded, and Column J
must be coded. Exclusion requires a double bubble. These
students will receive an Individual Student Profile Report,
but will not be included in the summary data”. |
Colorado |
There
is no direct reference to the inclusion of special needs
students. There is a segment on accommodations
that indicates which accommodations are permitted, but
it doesn’t say whether scores of all are included. |
Connecticut |
State
Department of Education Assessment Guidelines for
Administering the Connecticut Mastery Test and the
Connecticut Academic Performance Test consider
several factors when determining whether special
education students will be exempted from all or a
portion of the test. There are data to indicate
statewide participation rates for the 10th
grade CAPT were 94.6% in 1995 and 92.2% in 1997.
However, statewide, only 52.1% of the special
education students in grade 10 participated in 1996,
increasing to 56.7% in 1997. It is unclear whether
students who were not included in the test were
counted in any other fashion. According to the CCSSO
Web site: “Special education students who currently
may be exempted from all or a portion of the
grade-level must be considered for out-of-level
testing when available.” CCSSO also states the 1998
edition of the Strategic School Profiles will
include for the first time profiles on special
education. |
Delaware |
If
students test with accommodations that do not
interfere with the comparability of their
scores, their scores will be included with those
of students testing under regular conditions in
school, district, and state results.
If the accommodations interfere with
comparability, the scores are not included in
the school, district, and state results.
All students who test will have individual
reports produced. In 1999, about 5 percent of
the special education students who were enrolled
in regular schools were exempted from all or
part of the test, while 61 percent were tested
with accommodations. The Delaware Alternate
Portfolio Assessment (DAPA) was field tested in
1999 and will be fully operational in the
2000-01 school year.
The DAPA is for the 2-3% of the students with
significant cognitive disabilities who are in
functional/life skills curriculum. |
Florida |
The
Web site states: “Schools are required to
assess at least ninety percent of all
eligible students to ensure that the student
performance data accurately represents the
performance of the school.” However, a news
article in the St. Petersburg Times, May 23, 1999
linked from the State DOE Web site contends
that “State Department of Education
officials have been quietly excluding the
test scores of thousands of children who are
in special education programs…. Today, only
results from ‘standard curriculum’ school
children- generally average and gifted
students- are released in news conferences,
press releases and on the Internet.”
A similar article in the
Orlando Sentinel, May 24, 1999,
contends: “Florida’s practice of excluding
the test scores of special education
students when computing statewide averages
leaves out about ten percent of all
test-takers, and some say that gives a
distorted picture of child-achievement
levels. Special-education students take the
tests, but only results from average and
gifted school children are released.” |
Georgia |
Information about the Georgia High
School Graduation Tests (GHSGT) was
found on a link from the Dept. of
Education that attempts to answer
frequently asked questions about the
tests. There was no reference to students
with special needs.
However, there was a separate link on
“Exceptional Students” which stated:
“All students must be
considered for participation in all
statewide and district-wide assessments.
The IEP team for each student should
consider the purpose of the assessment,
consider the feasibility of the student
participating, determine what
accommodations, if any, the student will
need, and document in the IEP the
decision to participate or, if not, the
reason why the student will not
participate and identify how the student
will be assessed.” It further indicated:
“The state is obligated to report the
number of students with disabilities who
take and do not take standardized
assessments.
The data will be derived from the coding
systems.
The 9 code signals that the student’s
scores will be disaggregated. In other words, the students scores
will not be combined or included with
the scores from the other students who
are at that grade level in that school.” |
Illinois |
This
site clearly states that if a
student (IEP or non-IEP) takes a
state assessment test and passes the
attemptedness criterion, that
student’s score will be included in
the school, sub-district, district,
and state averages and data
computations. Beginning in 1999, the option of
allowing the student to take the
state assessment and excluding that
score from the school, district, and
state aggregations, (known as
“bubbling out”) would not be
available. If a student receives
special education services in a
facility that is not the student’s
home school or school of origin, the
student’s scores would be included
in the aggregations of the “home
school” and “home district.” The annual School Report Card must
contain at least the following two
scores: the scores for all students
(IEP and non-IEP), and disaggregated
scores for IEP students only.
Illinois is considering the
possibility of including a score
representing only non-IEP students
(a “regular education” score) on the
School Report Card. |
Indiana |
Certain accommodations
prescribed in the respective 504
plans for classroom assessments
by the students may be
appropriate for use with the
Indiana Statewide Testing for
Educational Progress (ISTEP+),
but test modifications are not
permitted. The only reliable
scores reported for students who
receive accommodations are
scores for the
criterion-referenced test.
Students who receive
accommodations will also receive
norm-referenced scores on their
individual student reports;
however, the accommodated
norm-referenced scores will not
be included in any aggregate
reports. A special education
student who is not expected to
ultimately receive a high school
diploma (and does not receive
instruction in English/language
arts and mathematics that
includes the content standards
tested by ISTEP+ may be exempted
from the testing by the
student’s case conference
committee. Indiana’s Assessment
System of Educational
Proficiencies (IASEP) is being
developed to meet Federal
guidelines which call for the
inclusion of students with
disabilities in statewide
accountability systems. This
population is estimated to
include 1 to 2 % of Indiana’s
students. |
Iowa |
On a
document on “Participation
in Assessments” for the the
IDEA 97 Implementation Plan
there is a segment which
says: “For reports the state
provides to the public, the
following information will
be included for assessments
that are reported for
regular education students: |
Kansas |
From a
Web site document
entitled, “Overview of
the Kansas Assessment
Programs”: “All Kansas
students at the
designated grades
including special
education and Limited
English Proficient
students are tested.
Students in public and
private schools are
tested.
SPED and LEP students
are only excluded from
testing when the child’s
IEP specifically calls
for the student not to
be tested.
In the future, special
education and LEP
students will be tested
based on their grade
placement level.” On a
separate document
(obtained at a meeting,
not off the Web) it
references IDEA and
indicated that an
alternate assessment is
under development only
for those children with
the most severe
cognitive disabilities.
Less that 1% of
the school population
would meet that
criteria, and take the
alternate assessment.
KSDE staff have
estimated that 0.7% to
1.5% of the school
population cannot
meaningfully participate
in the regular State
Assessments, but do not
meet the criteria for
inclusion in the
alternate assessment.
Many of these students
participate in the
general education
curriculum for the
better portion of the
day.
However, they do not
have the reading skills
necessary to participate
in State Assessments.
Therefore Kansas
believes these children
need a “gap” assessment,
which would be the
regular assessment taken
with modifications. |
Kentucky |
For
each school and
district, the
average performance
of all students is
assessed in each
content area. The
content area
averages were
combined with
non-academic factors
to determine a
school or district
average performance
level. Scores from
alternate portfolios
are included in the
academic indices.
This enables data
from an alternate
portfolio completed
by an eligible
student to
contribute the same
weight to the
academic component
of the
accountability index
as would the data
for a student
participating in the
regular components
of the assessment
program at the
elementary, middle,
or high school
levels. The CCSSO Web site states: “Virtually all students in a
school or district
were included in
this index.
LEP students were
included after they
had been in an
English-speaking
school for at least
two years.” |
Louisiana |
All
students,
including those
with
disabilities,
are expected to
participate in
Louisiana’s
testing program.
Approximately
80% of such
students will
take the LEAP-21
and the Iowa
Tests (with
accommodations,
if required by
their
individualized
education plan,
or IEP). The
remaining 20% or
so are those
with very
significant
disabilities,
and they will
take an
alternate
assessment (as
required by
their IEP). The
scores of every
student who is
eligible to take
the LEAP-21 and
the Iowa Tests
will be included
in the
calculation of
the School
Performance
Score. During the summer of 1999 for K-8 schools and summer of
2001 for 9-12
schools, each
school will
receive two
School
Performance
Scores as
follows: |
Maryland |
Students
with
disabilities
are exempted
from
participating
in the
Maryland
School
Performance
Assessment
Program
(MSPAP) and
Functional
tests only
if they are
not
attempting
to earn a
diploma.
However,
they are
assessed
through
alternative
vehicles
such as
authentic
performance
tasks,
portfolios,
and parent
participation
surveys. |
Massachusetts |
All
public
school
students,
including
Limited
English
Proficient
(LEP)
and
students
with
disabilities
are
required
to
participate
in the
Massachusetts
Comprehensive
Assessments
(MCA)
and the
Grade 3
reading
test.
Those
students
with an
Individualized
Education
Plan
(IEP)
are
considered
to be
disabled.
In
determining
how a
student
with
disabilities
will
participate
in the
MCAs,
the
student’s
IEP team
must
consider
whether
the
student
requires
accommodations
in order
to
participate
in the
tests.
If
accommodations
would
not
enable
the
student
to take
the
tests,
the team
must
identify
appropriate
alternate
assessments
to
enable
the
student
to
demonstrate
his/her
knowledge
of the
standards
contained
in the
curriculum
frameworks.
Reports
indicating
results
for
individual
students,
including
students
with
disabilities,
are
provided
in the
fall to
local
school
personnel.
Parents
or
guardians
also
receive
a report
for
their
child at
that
time.
All
reports
identifying
individual
students
are kept
confidential. |
Michigan |
Doesn’t
speak
directly
to
Students
with
Disabilities,
but
the
accountability
measures
for
accreditation
requires
that
95%
of
enrolled
students
must
be
tested. |
Mississippi |
If non-standard
accommodations
are
used
on
a
test,
the
results
are
not
considered
to
be
valid,
and
therefore
are
not
included
in
the
district’s
summary
statistics
used
in
the
performance-based
accreditation
system.
Additionally,
these
scores
are
not
reported
to
the
public
since
the
results
are
not
statistically
sound.
Students
who
are
provided
instruction
utilizing
an
alternate
or
parallel
curriculum
in
any
of
the
areas
assessed
will
have
their
scores
excluded.
This
alternate
type
of
curriculum
differs
from
the
basic
expectations
of
any
other
regular
education
student
in
that
subject
area,
and
the
grade
given
is
not
based
on
the
basic
regular
education
curriculum
objectives. If a student’s IEP indicates they are
working
toward
eventually
meeting
the
same
basic
curriculum
objectives
but,
due
to
their
educational
delays,
they
are
not
expected
to
meet
the
basic
curriculum
objectives
for
that
school
year,
their
scores
will
be
excluded.
Guidelines
regarding
specific
allowable
accommodations
for
each
test
are
on
file
in
the
Office
of
Student
Assessment
&
in
the
Office
of
Special
Education.
Documentation
must
be
maintained
on
file
to
support
the
number
of
students
who
will
and
will
not
participate
in
each
applicable
assessment
program,
the
accommodations,
if
necessary,
for
each
student
and
the
number
of
students
whose
test
scores
will
be
excluded
from
the
district’s
summary
statistics
as
well
as
the
reason
for
any
exclusion
of
a
score. |
Missouri |
Students with disabilities who participate in the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) subject area assessments without accommodations receive valid norm-referenced scores for the Terra Nova for each subject area. They also receive standards-referenced scores for their overall performance in relation to the Show-Me Standards. Students with disabilities who receive accommodations will not have valid norm-referenced scores but will receive valid information about their performance in relation to the Show-Me Standards. Their standards-referenced scores will be aggregated with those of other students to describe classroom, building, and district performance. Students with disabilities will have their scores aggregated and reported in their district of residence even if they receive services in another district. State Policy Guidelines specify that local school districts will account for all student enrolled in the school district at the time of the state assessment. All enrolled students will be reported in one of the following categories: (1) regular MAP subject area assessments under standard conditions, (2) regular MAP subject area assessments with accommodations that have been approved, (3) alternate assessments, (4) not participating in either MAP subject area assessments or alternate assessments for: prolonged illness, extended absence from school, or physician recommendation that has been documented in the reporting forms and IEP. |
Nebraska |
To assist in determining local and state progress and areas of special need, data are reported by subgroup (disaggregated) for students with disabilities whenever the subgroup comprises 5% of the student body, or ten students, whichever is greater. The site asserts that assessment and reporting procedures will follow state and federal guidelines. |
Nevada |
Few accommodations are permitted for the Terra Nova. In addition, any scores obtained using any non-standard procedure are excluded. Therefore, there are limited ways for students with disabilities to participate and have their scores count. |
New Jersey |
An
alternative format of assessment will be provided to students with disabilities with severe disabilities who meet specified criteria. Those with severe disabilities who are “not receiving instruction in any of the knowledge and skills measured by the statewide assessment” and any students who “cannot complete any of the questions on the assessment in a subject area with or without accommodations” may be exempted from participation in statewide tests. They still take locally determined alternative
assessments as determined by IEP team. Scores of students with disabilities who are not excluded or do not use unapproved modifications are expected to be included in district/school reports. Efforts have been made to include students with disabilities who attend private schools for their disability (their scores are included in the sending districts scores). |
New Mexico |
Scores of special education students are reported to the state separately and as a part of the aggregate report, except when reporting the scores of less than 10 special education students. |
New York |
The performance of all students, including students with disabilities is included in the calculations used to determine whether a district is required to develop a Local Assistance Plan for a school, to identify schools not meeting state standards, and to determine if schools are making adequate yearly progress. On the school report card, the performance of all students tested (including students with disabilities) will be aggregated. On the 5th-grade writing test, the performance of general education will be reported separately from that of students with disabilities receiving supplemental services. For all measures, except attendance, dropout, and suspension rates, the performance of students with disabilities will be displayed separately as well as aggregated. For each assessment given, the school is to report the number of students tested, the number of students scoring at each performance level, and the number of students who were IEP-exempted. |
North Carolina |
Students with disabilities may be exempted from the competency tests if the exemption is stated in the student’s IEP and if the student is not following the standard course of study. IEP committees determine the appropriateness of exemptions for students with disabilities. Criteria for exemptions include: type or severity of disability, time spent in special education settings, alignment of instructional goals and test content, and course work completed in regular educational settings or programs. Format accommodations are available for students with disabilities, as well as alternate assessments. If a SWD is exempted from testing in one subject but is included in testing for the remaining subjects, that student will be included in the school’s standard testing percentage requirement for that subject area. According to state board policy, every K-8 school must test at least 98% of its eligible students. |
Ohio |
Participation is a district decision: “Each school district shall adopt a policy and establish procedures regarding the participation of students with disabilities….A school district may exempt a student with a disability from taking one or more of the proficiency tests. Such exemption is made by the IEP team and is specified in the IEP. Modifications in test format and/or test administration procedures will be made to accommodate the needs of an individual student if such modifications are specified in the IEP.” |
Oklahoma |
Not Specified. A link from the State DOE Web site for the policies/procedures manual for special education went to an error page. |
Oregon |
Participation Rates reported on the School Report Cards do not include students who took the test with accommodations or were exempted by their IEP team:
(# attempted test under regular conditions) ¸ (# attempted test under regular conditions + # absent) |
Pennsylvania |
A minimum of 80% of students must be included in the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) scores for both years to be eligible for the awards. Students with disabilities who are not exempted due to parent request, IEP, LEP status, extended absence, withdrawal from school, or other reasons are to be included in the PSSA results. |
Rhode Island |
Student Scores are disaggregated for special reports; however, the performance data on the Information Works! Report includes all test takers, which would include all SWD not exempted. No mention was made of scores from accommodated tests. |
South Carolina |
Students who are included in statewide testing are included in the accountability system. However, the exemption rates for students with disabilities in 1998 was 15,714 students, or >6% of the student population (approx. 60% of special education). |
Tennessee |
“Records from any student who is eligible for special education services under federal law will not be used as part of the value added assessment.” |
Texas |
Scores are evaluated for “students (non-special education and special education) tested in English in grades 3–8, & 10 (exit-level), for reading, mathematics, and writing.” In addition, scores are now evaluated for “students (non-special education and special education) tested on Spanish TAAS in grades 3 – 6, in reading, mathematics, and writing.” |
Vermont |
Not Specified, although the policy talks extensively about inclusion and cites Vermont’s portfolio system as an inclusive measure. |
Washington |
Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) reports the number of students tested in each of the four areas (Mathematics, Reading, Writing, and Listening). Percentages reported are based on the number of students meeting each standard divided by the percent of students eligible to be tested in each area. (Results are not reported when <10 students were tested in any area.) Reported percentages of students in each of the four performance levels is based on the number in each level divided by the number of students eligible to be tested in either reading or mathematics. Percentages are also reported for students eligible to be tested that were not tested in each area (i.e., students who were absent) and students exempted from each area of the test. This is similar to the reporting practices for the other assessments given. |
West Virginia |
On the Web site under a section on the state plan from the Office of Special Education it indicates: “Students with disabilities will be part of the state accountability system and the results will be used to improve educational results.” Indicators for this objective would be that “the percentage of students with disabilities participating in the norm-referenced component of the Statewide Assessment Program will increase.” There were no more specifics as to what the percentage is now, or what was expected as the goal or timeline of the “increase.” |