NCEO Framework for Educational Accountability

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by Jim Ysseldyke, Jane Krentz, Judy Elliott, Martha L. Thurlow, Ronald Erickson, and Michael L. Moore

May, 1998

Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Ysseldyke, J., Krentz, J., Elliott, J., Thurlow, M. L., Erickson, R., & Moore, M. L. (1998). NCEO framework for educational accountability. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Framework/FrameworkText.html

Abstract

Recent federal legislation, from the passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1990 to the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, has focused greater attention on the issues of accountability and the need for standards-based education reform. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) developed a conceptual model for a "balanced system of accountability" that includes system standards, inputs and processes, and student learning outcomes. We at the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) developed a framework for educational accountability in which we specify outcomes and indicators for six developmental levels (ages three and six, grades four, eight, and twelve, and post-school). We describe how the NCEO framework can be used to implement parts of the NASDSE model. In addition to a description of the NCEO Framework for Educational Accountability, we describe the domains, indicators, and sources of information that can be adopted or adapted for use in system-wide or individual accountability.

Accountability in Educational Reform

The passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1990, and subsequent federal legislation such as the Improving America’s Schools Act, has focused the attention of the nation on accountability and the need for standards-based education reform. The passage of the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has placed even greater emphasis on the issue of accountability. States are required to have established goals for performance of students with disabilities, and assess progress toward achieving those goals. The performance of students with disabilities will be accounted for by indicators such as test scores, dropout rates, and graduation records. Every two years, states will report their progress to the public and, based on that progress, each state will be expected to revise its state improvement plan. Students with disabilities will be included in general state and district-wide assessment programs with appropriate accommodations where necessary. Reports on the number and performance of students with disabilities who take regular assessments will begin in July 1, 1998. In addition, states must also develop guidelines for the participation in an alternate assessment for those students with disabilities who cannot be included in the regular assessment with accommodations. The alternate assessments must be developed and implemented by July 1, 2000. Whether motivated by federal legislation or through their own initiative, states are investing significant time, energy, and resources developing and modifying assessment and accountability systems.

If accountability systems are to be meaningful, assessments must align with standards and curricula. Both of these, in turn, must be based on consensus about what is important for students to know, and when and how to identify the extent to which they have mastered necessary skills and knowledge. States and districts will want to build on what is currently available, and modify and adapt existing assessments to provide the needed information.

Development of NASDSE Model for a Balanced, Inclusive Accountability System

Recognizing the increased emphasis on accountability in educational reform, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) took steps to clarify how accountability should be applied to students with disabilities. In 1995 NASDSE published Vision for a Balanced System of Accountability and introduced a model of accountability comprised of three components: (1) system accountability, (2) individual student accountability, and (3) input/process accountability (see Figure 1). The pivotal concept for this model is that balanced accountability is evidenced where an educational system is accountable for ensuring that all children, including those with disabilities, benefit from their educational experience through equal access, high standards and high expectations, and become caring, productive, socially involved citizens who are committed to life-long learning.

The fundamental principle of this model of accountability is the dynamic balance between and among the three major components of the system. This theory envisions a social system as a triangle and proposes that, in an ideal state, each of the three poles of the triangle is robust and performs its unique function to provide balance. In reality, however, a relative imbalance often prevails with one pole assuming dominance over the others. For example, an overemphasis on procedural matters can result in high rates of exclusion of students with disabilities from system assessments and inadequate accountability for individual student achievement.

Starting in October 1996, NASDSE began a series of invitational conferences to further develop and operationalize the model. The first conference, entitled Accountability in Special Education: Enhancing Student Accountability, was held at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin and has become known as the NASDSE Wingspread I Conference. Focusing on the individual student component of the model, educational stakeholders convened to make the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) a more useful process, and attempted to enhance the IEP document for both instruction and accountability. NASDSE’s Wingspread II Conference, held in October 1997, focused on the system accountability component of the model. Participants at this conference identified guiding principles for development, implementation, and evaluation of a balanced, inclusive accountability system. NASDSE published a report of this conference, Guiding Principles for an Inclusive Accountability System.

Development of the NCEO Framework for Educational Accountability

In the early 1990s, NCEO personnel worked with hundreds of stakeholders to develop a conceptual model of educational results and indicators to guide the accountability process. NCEO used a multi-attribute consensus building (MAC) process to help generate and reach agreement on the outcomes and indicators included in the model at six developmental levels (ages three and six, grades four, eight, and twelve, and post-school).

Different groups of stakeholders, meeting over a two-year time period, were used to identify results and indicators for each developmental level. Because this information was developed over time, it was contained in a series of 12 different documents, two per developmental level (one giving the outcomes and indicators, a second giving the sources of data). We have always assumed that a conceptual framework of educational accountability should be dynamic, subject to change, and responsive to review, criticism, and changes in assessment practices over time. And, we have solicited external review and critique of the model from individuals and professional groups. Based on much input, we have revised the conceptual model into the framework shown in Figure 2.

The comprehensive framework is designed to be used for the development or revision of district and state assessment and accountability systems. This framework can also be used to design alternate assessment systems and guide the IEP planning process for students with disabilities, ensuring that individual goals are comprehensive and aligned with state or district standards.

We examined the domains of results and indicators at each age level and looked for ways to simplify the format. Before making these simplifications to the framework, we sought the input of several people who had worked on the development of the model, or were currently adapting it for their own use. We were ever mindful of the process of developing the initial framework, but at the same time, sensitive to the fact that if it is not in a useable format, it will not be used. We attempted to eliminate redundancy and overlap among the age level indicators and provide a consistent format. By changing the way we identify the indicators at each level, we have accommodated suggestions that the framework be modified to use as a basis for an alternate assessment, to guide the development of IEPs, or to structure accountability for the performance of individuals (see Kratochwill & Elliott, 1997).

We also modified the framework so that it can be used on both an individual level and on large scale systems. For example, under the domain Physical Health, one of the results is "Students Demonstrate Age-Appropriate Physical Development." An indicator for this result is "Growth and physical development in expected range." When used as part of an individual accountability system, evaluators would record whether the individual student’s growth and development are within the expected range. When used as a system indicator, evaluators would count the number or percentage of students whose growth or physical development is in the expected range.

In this paper we present the revised Framework of Educational Accountability. We start with a brief review of terminology.

Terminology

• Accountability
  
  A systematic method to assure stakeholders - educators, policymakers, and the public - that schools are producing desired results.  Accountability includes common elements such as goals, indicators or progress toward meeting those goals, measures, analysis of data, reporting procedures, and consequences or sanctions.
  
  
• Assessment
  
  The process of collecting information (including test data), for the purpose of making decisions about individuals, groups, or systems.
  
  
• Domains
  
  Clusters of inputs, processes, or outcomes.
  
  
• Educational Processes
  
  Educational opportunities; includes student participation, family involvement, the availability of accommodations, state/school district practices, school building level practices, and classroom instructional practices.
  
  
• Educational Results
  
  The outcomes of interactions between individuals and educational experiences, both individually and system-wide.
  
  
• Indicators
  
  Symbolic representations of one or more inputs, processes, or results that can be used in making comparisons or evaluations.  They can be numbers, percentages, or other representations such as test scores, levels of participation, or perceptions of student accomplishments.  Indicators can be used for comparisons over time, for comparisons an absolute standard, or for comparisons among and within groups.
  
  
• Inputs and Resources
  
  Characteristics and resources that impact and support student learning, including student characteristics, fiscal and physical factors, personnel, family characteristics, community characteristics, and policies.
  
  
• Sources of Information
  
  Tests, existing data banks, etc. that can be used to provide information on indicators.

Fundamental Assumptions

As we developed the conceptual framework of educational accountability we made some fundamental assumptions. These were as follows:

• A framework of inputs, processes, and results is needed for all students, and at the broadest level, should apply to all students regardless of the characteristics of individuals.

• The framework should primarily focus on intended results (e.g., high levels of student achievement), but be sensitive to unintended results (e.g., high levels of dropout) as well.

• The framework should include both direct (e.g., math skills) and indirect (e.g., getting a job) results.

• Indicators of results for students receiving special education services should be related, conceptually and statistically, to those identified for students without disabilities.

• Indicators should reflect the diversity of gender, culture, race, and other characteristics of students in today’s school population.

• While indicators ideally should meet research standards, those that do not could still be used. (For example, we should not have to wait until we can reliably and validly assess a result before considering it important enough to assess.)

• A comprehensive system of indicators should provide information needed to make policy decisions at the national, state, and local levels.

• A comprehensive system of indicators should be flexible, dynamic, and responsive to review and criticism. It should also change to meet identified needs and future developments in the measurement of inputs, contexts, educational processes, and results.

Using the Framework for Educational Accountability

A complete model of educational accountability takes into account educational results, educational inputs and resources, and educational processes. All of these are reflected in NCEO’s framework for educational accountability, which was illustrated in Figure 2. The framework is presented in a circular format to express its dynamic nature and the interdependence of all its elements. It is intended that this NCEO framework be adopted or adapted by states and local districts as they design or modify assessment and accountability systems.

Information can be collected on inputs, processes, and results indicators, as well as on various domains (see Figure 3). For each indicator, different kinds of data can be collected and reported.

Indicators of inputs include elements such as adequacy of physical facilities and teacher/pupil ratio. Educational process indicators include instructional accommodations, opportunities to learn, and partnerships with the community. Figure 3A serves as an example of educational input and resource indicators (additional examples are contained in Figures 3B–F and Tables 1 and 2. Figures 4A–4F illustrate indicators for educational processes).

Over the past several years numerous focus groups of stakeholders identified six domains of educational results, along with three domains that have been designated as educational processes. Within each of the results domains, stakeholders specified important educational results for which school personnel should be gathering data. These results are listed in Figures 5A–5F (as well as the student-oriented domains noted in Figures 4A–4C). Tables 1 and 2 provide specific suggested indicators for each of the results. The indicators are listed in a way that will enable district and state personnel to adapt them for use in either system or individual accountability.

Note that Tables 1 and 2 include results and indicators for a broad range of ages and abilities. For each indicator a filled square marks the developmental level at which it is suggested the data first be collected. For example, under the Domain "Academic and Functional Literacy," there is the result "Students Demonstrate Competence in Communication." One of the indicators for this is "Use and comprehend language that effectively accomplishes the purpose of the communication." The darker square appears at Age 3, and flows throughout the developmental process. This depicts the idea that you would begin to monitor that particular outcome at Age 3, but would clearly want to continue to monitor this throughout the age ranges. For most students, the sophistication and level of ability expected would also rise accordingly.

We have prepared two additional documents relating to the Framework for Educational Accountability. The first focuses on using the framework with a post-school population, and considers the relationship to school-to-work and SCANS indicators. The second focuses specifically on academic results and indicators. We recognize that some states are restricted to looking at only academic results and indicators, and others may choose to start with academic domains and subsequently broaden to include other areas.

Tables 1 and 2 are Adobe Acrobat .pdf files.
Download Adobe Acrobat Reader

• Table 1 - Educational Processes (Student-Oriented Domain): Participation
• Table 2 - Educational Results Domain: Academic and Functional Literacy

Possible Sources of Information for the Indicators

NCEO personnel asked numerous measurement experts to identify possible sources of information for the indicators, suggesting that they focus on existing or readily available sources of information. We believe a comprehensive accountability system will be more readily implemented if school personnel can rely on existing information rather than creating entirely new information collection systems. Possible sources of information are listed in the Appendices.

The NASDSE and NCEO Models Work Together

The NASDSE Model for a Balanced, Inclusive Accountability System provides a conceptual framework for accountability. NASDSE has chosen to focus on the distinction between accountability for system results and accountability for student learning outcomes, and has combined inputs and processes as the third component in their triangle. The NASDSE model is designed to show what a balanced system of accountability looks like.

The NCEO framework, on the other hand, focuses on how to implement an accountability model. The NCEO model differentiates educational inputs and resources from educational processes, and integrates educational results for systems and individuals. The framework is portrayed in a circular, interconnected fashion, as each component influences and is influenced by the other components.

Applications of the NCEO Framework

There are several examples of how the NCEO framework has been applied within educational settings. Three of these examples are highlighted below.

 

Iowa's ISEE Results

The Iowa Special Education (ISEE) Results system is a mechanism for collecting information and developing reports that describe special education outcomes. Iowa adapted the outcomes in NCEO’s model as the basis for its accountability system. The specific "Goal Codes" used in Iowa are shown in Figure 6. These goal codes are used on students’ IEPs, and standards for acceptable performance are identified for each goal.

At the end of the goal period (usually the end of the school year), four decisions are made: (1) progress conclusion, (2) discrepancy conclusion, (3) independence conclusion, and (4) goal status. For example, the progress conclusion compares the student’s actual performance with the expected level of performance for that student. The discrepancy conclusion compares the magnitude of the discrepancy between actual student performance and acceptable student performance at the end of the goal period with the discrepancy at the beginning of the goal period. (See I-SEE Results 97 User’s Manual, 1997, for excellent examples of the decisions and details on how to make them.)

 

Minnesota Charter Schools

The NCEO framework has also been used as the basis for the evaluation of Minnesota’s charter schools (see Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, December 1996). Seven domains and multiple indicators of student performance within each area were used to evaluate 16 charter schools.

The following specific indicators allowed evaluators to collect a common set of data on schools that were widely divergent in approach to providing educational services:

Academic Performance

• Percent of students scoring above the 50th percentile on standardized tests of reading and math.

• Percent passing the Minnesota basic graduation tests in reading and math.

• Percent of parents reporting improved academic progress for their son or daughter.

Presence and Participation

• Absenteeism rate during the 1994-1995 school year (last year for which complete data are available).

Contribution and Citizenship

• Percent of students who have been suspended or subjected to other disciplinary actions during the 1995-1996 school year.

• Percent of students involved in criminal activity.

• Percent of students involved in school community projects during the 1995-1996 school year.

Physical Health

• Percent of students reporting engagement in high risk behaviors.

Personal and Social Adjustment

• Percent of students satisfied with self

• Percent of students getting along with others.

Responsibility and Independence

• Percent of staff reporting satisfaction with student responsibility and discipline.

• Percent of students reporting responsible use of daily time.

Satisfaction

• Parent satisfaction with various aspects of the school.

• Student satisfaction with the charter school experience.

• Percent of students eligible for re-enrollment who re-enroll for the 1996-1997 school year.

 

School Choice Evaluation

Minnesota has a school choice program called the High School Graduation Incentives Program (HSGI). The program is designed to meet the needs of students at risk of not completing traditional programs. Students who are (1) behind two or more years academically have dropped out of school, (2) are expelled from school, (3) are pregnant or a custodial parent, or (4) are at risk for other reasons, may enroll at any time during the school year in any school in the state. The impact of this program on students with disabilities was evaluated using an adaptation of the original NCEO framework (Lange & Ysseldyke, 1998). The seven domains used to guide the evaluation were:

• Academic and Functional Literacy
• Presence and Participation
• Contribution and Citizenship
• Responsibility and Independence
• Personal and Social Adjustment
• Physical Health
• Satisfaction

The findings for the indicators within these domains are summarized in Figure 7.

 

References

Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement. (1996). Minnesota charter schools evaluation (Interim Report). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, CAREI.

I-SEE Results 97 User’s Manual. (1997).

Lange, C. M. (1998). School choice policies and practices for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64 (2), 255-270.

Figure 6.  Iowa Special Education Results Goal Codes

Figure 7. Findings for Students with Disabilities Attending HSGI Programs

Appendix A

Possible Data Sources for Early Childhood Indicators

Academic and Functional Literacy

• Parent/guardian observations

• Teacher observations

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Teacher survey or interview

• Child survey or interview

• Record review

• Video-tape

• Play-based assessment

• Standardized assessment test data from state departments of education

• Classroom records of student participation on specific instructional units

 

• Data from state departments of education or human services, e.g. child count data

• State licensing agency records for private day care facilities, nursery schools, etc.

• Survey of private and community day care programs

• Records from state or school districts

• Survey of Early Childhood Special Education programs

• Public school program data bases

• State follow-up surveys for early intervention services

• Survey of Parents as Teachers programs

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Child survey or interview

• Records of city or county recreational programs

• Survey of community organizations and/or park and recreation departments

• Data from the National Association for the Education of Young Children, or Early

        Childhood Institute on Mainstreaming

• Data from the National Center for Education Statistics

 

• Case reviews

• Published satisfaction survey from state education and health agencies

• Parent/guardian survey

• Individual family survey or interview

• Child survey or interview

• Professional staff survey or interview

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Survey of Parents as Teachers programs

• Records of public programs

• Records of parent/teacher organizations

• Program surveys

• Items from the National Center for Education Statistics’ National Household Education Survey

• Records or survey data from parent/family support organizations

• Survey of Head Start programs

• Records of parent/guardian participation in early childhood/school activities

• Records from state departments of social or family services

• Data from Children’s Defense Fund or other organization

• Local or state poverty rate statistics

• Community statistics on crime trends

• Data from state or local child protection services

• State demographic records on high risk indicators

• Data from home visits

• Data from local education agencies

• Case reviews of Individualized Education Plans

• Medicaid/Medicare records

 

• Data from local education agencies or state departments

• Case reviews of Individual Education Plans

• Records of pre-referral intervention activities

• Medicaid/Medicare records

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Individual family survey or interview

• Child survey or interview

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Data from public school programs, screening clinics, physicians or hospitals

• Records from county or state departments of health or WIC programs

• Items from the National Health Interview Survey of Child Health (Rand Corporation, 1980)

• Participation rates in free or reduced breakfast or lunch programs sponsored with federal or state subsidies

• Usage rates of abuse hotline services

• Data from state or local child protection services

• Hospital or poison control center records showing trends and national comparisons

• Hospital emergency records

• Records from child care centers

• School health records

• Data from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Medicaid/Medicare records

• Surveys of local health departments

• Survey of local park and recreation departments

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Informal parent/guardian observations

• Informal teacher observations

• Child survey or interview

• Parent/guardian observations

• Teacher observations

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Child survey or interview

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Teacher survey or interview

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher survey using scales or checklists

• Parent/guardian observations

• Teacher observations

• Child survey or interview

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Parent/guardian ratings using scales or checklists

• Teacher ratings using scales or checklists

• Provider survey or interview

• Teacher survey or interview

• Observation of education staff during interdisciplinary team activities

• Community member survey or interview

• Policymaker survey or interview

• Parent/guardian observation or reports

• Teacher observation or reports

• Child interview or survey

Some of the individuals who suggested possible sources of data also cited assessments that might be helpful in collecting information on the indicators. The following list of published materials may be useful for some of the indicators. Inclusion in this list does not imply its endorsement by the National Center on Educational Outcomes or its funding agency.

Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test, Publisher: DLM Teaching Resources/Riverside Publishing

Beginning Milestones, Publisher: DLM

Boehm Test of Basic Concepts- Preschool Version, Publisher: The Psychological Corporation

Bracken Basic Concept Scale, Publisher: Psychological Corporation

BRIGANCE Diagnostic Inventory of Early Development, Publisher: Curriculum Associates

Carolina Curricula: Preschoolers with Special Needs, Publisher: Paul Brookes

Child Behavior Checklist, Publisher: Thomas M Achenbach

Child’s Observation Record (COR), Publisher: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation

Denver Developmental Screening Test II, Publisher: Denver Developmental Materials

The Developmental Resource, Publisher: Grune and Stratton

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Publisher: Teachers College Press

Early Coping Skills, Publisher: Scholastic Testing Service

Early Screening Inventory, Publisher: Teachers College Press

Early Screening Profiles, Publisher: American Guidance Service

Ecobehavioral Assessment of Social Interaction (EASI), Available from: Mary Mc Evoy, Ph.D., University of Minnesota

Ecobehavioral System for Complex Assessment of Preschool Environments (ESCAPE), Publisher: Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas

Family Needs Survey, The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 22, #1, p. 117-127

Family Resource Scale, Publisher: Western Carolina Center

Family Support Scale, Journal of Individual, Family, and Community Wellness, Vol. 1, p. 45-52

Help for Special Preschoolers Assessment Checklist: Ages 3-6, Publisher: VORT Corporation

Home Observation for the Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Scale, Publisher: University of Arkansas Press

Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP), Publisher: DLM Teaching Resources

Learning Accomplishment Profile- Diagnostic Edition, Publisher: Kaplan Press

National Health Interview Survey of Child Health (NHISCH), Publisher: Rand Corporation

National Survey of Children Educational Aspirations Scale, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 14, #1-2, p. 119-136

The Pictorial Scale of Perceived Competence and Social Acceptance for Young Children, Publisher: University of Denver

Preschool Language Scales, Publisher: Psychological Corporation

The Primary Program, Publisher: University of Nebraska

Rating Individual Participation in Teams, Available from D.B. Bailey, UNC- Chapel Hill

Scales of Independent Behavior (SIB), Publisher: DLM Teaching Resources

Social Attributes Checklist, Publisher: Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education

Social Skills Rating System, Publisher: American Guidance Service

System to Plan Early Childhood Services (SPECS), Publisher: American Guidance Service

Temperament Assessment Battery for Children, Publisher: Clinical Psychology

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Publisher: American Guidance Service

Work Sampling System, See: Meisels, S.J. The Work Sampling System: An overview: Ann Arbor; University of Michigan

Appendix B

Possible Data Sources for School-Age Indicators

• Teacher observations of student in academic environments

• Student contracts, portfolios, or performance records

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Teacher survey or interview

• Teacher ratings

• Student survey or interview

• Peer survey or interview

• School or district results from statewide assessment program

• Performance on language, mathematics, reading or writing tests

• Performance-based assessment results

• Results of speech or language assessments (for students receiving services)

• Selected items from U.S. census on percentage of students who are "linguistically isolated" (living in a household where   no one over age 14 speaks English fluently or as their only language)

• Observations of student performance and scaling responses using rubrics from existing problem-solving and critical thinking skills materials

• School or district participation records in speech, debate, or theater

• Selected items from the National Center for Education Statistic’s National Assessment of Educational Progress

• Comparison of performance on tasks to the U.S. Department of Education’s Youth Indicators 1993: Trends in the Well-Being of American Youth

• Analysis of teaching plans

• Inventory of technology available to school populations in the school or district

• Ratings of success after six months in next environment

• Reports by the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA)

• School or district statistics

• State education department records or annual state reports to U.S. Office of Special Education Programs

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Student survey or interview

• Peer survey or interview

• School enrollment and attendance records, including transfers to other schools within the district and to other districts

• Student medical records (consent required)

• Number of students suspended, expelled, and average length of all suspensions and expulsions

• Data from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education

• Testing records from local schools or districts, state departments of education and relevant national agencies

• District special education records

• Survey/interview of building principal, school psychologist, or special education staff

• District records of open enrollment patterns

• Private school enrollment records

• Weekly probe analysis of lesson plans to measure average and range of different planned activities

• Teacher ratings of active student participation

• Systematic observation of students

• Participation rates on project fairs

• Rates of homework completion

• Attendance records of student-sponsored events

• Membership rosters in school clubs

• Transportation records

• School record or record from community agency of student participation in community activities

• Selected items from the National Center for Education Statistics’ National Assessment on Educational Progress

• Selected items on programs and practices from the biennial Elementary and Secondary School Survey (conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights)

• Selected items from the 1993 National Household Education Survey

• Selected items from the National Center for Education Statistics’ National Education Longitudinal Study

• Records from national testing program (e.g. NAEP, NELS)

• Private agency records (e.g. ACE, ACT, ETS)

• State reports to U.S. Office of Special Education Programs

• Vocational education follow-up records

• Student transcripts and graduation records obtained from districts

• Records from Adult Education Office in Washington, D.C.

• American Council on Education- state reports on GED testing and test results

• School district records of program participation

• Attendance or service records from community agencies or programs

• Appointment records of school counselors or building principals

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Teacher survey or interview

• Student survey or interview

• Peer survey or interview

• School volunteer and visitation records

• Parent/guardian attendance rates at school events and meetings

• Teacher records

• Records from state or local child protection services

• Records from state public health, social services or mental health agency

• Selected items from the 1993 National Household Education Survey on parent/guardian participation in school and home supports for children’s education

• Selected questions from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Schools and Staffing Survey on parent/guardian participation

• Teacher survey or interview

• Family survey or interview

• Student survey or interview

• Peer survey or interview

• Student health screenings

• Report of cafeteria staff regarding student nutritional choices

• Student achievement or performance in health and nutritional coursework, physical education curriculum, basic safety curriculum, and basic fitness curriculum

• School or district statistics

• Selected items from the U.S. Department of Education’s Youth Indicators 1993: Trends in the Well-Being of American Youth

• Teacher observation

• Family inventory of sports equipment

• Membership in athletic teams, clubs or attendance at camps

• Participation records from community agencies/groups (i.e. YMCA, YWCA, Scouts, City Parks, etc.)

• School accident records

• School health records on number and percentage of students who report illness

• Selected items from the 1993 National Household Education Survey

• Peer reports

• School or district performance records in the President’s Physical Fitness program

• Comparison of school or district data to findings reported in the National Center for Education Statistics’ National Education Longitudinal Study

• Selected items from the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

• Selected items from the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Health Interview Survey

• Administrative school records of violations

• Biannual Center for Disease Control Youth Risk Behaviors Survey (YRBS)

• Skin fold test for obesity/underweight

• Report nutritional choices within past week or day to assess good and poor choices

• Finger-prick cholesterol check

• Participation in sports, (competitive and intramural) and clubs

• Selected items from adaptive behavior scales or checklists (e.g. Responsibility and Independence Scale for Adolescents, PASS, Scales of Independent Behavior)

• State examinations on Health

• Fitness tests and physical exams

• Teacher observations in free time situations (e.g. recess, lunch, before and after school)

• Records of parent/guardian-teacher conferences

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Teacher survey or interview

• Student records regarding on-time assignments and finished assignments

• Student survey or interview

• School or district records

• Data on use of personal care assistant services

• Lost and found reports in building or district

• School counselor records

• Teacher observation of cooperative learning groups

• Teacher observation of personal appearance

• Results of teacher assessments, e.g. the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales or the Performance Assessment for Self-Sufficiency (PASS), Responsibility and Independence Scale for Adolescents, Scales of Independent Behavior

• Open-ended test

Administrative records from post-secondary institutions

• Participation records of school or district-wide efforts (e.g. community food drives, recycling programs)

• Records of school property damage or repair

• Custodial records of trash and recycling patterns

• Teacher observations of students during free time (e.g. recess, lunch, before and after school)

• Parent/guardian survey or interview

• Student survey or interview

• Teacher survey or interview

• Selected items from the 1993 National Household Education Survey on student suspension, expulsion, and school contacts regarding behavior

• Selected items from the National Center on Education Statistics’ Schools and Staffing Survey on the level of school behavior problems

• School or district discipline reports

• Attendance records in special community programs

• Teacher records of behavioral programs and contingencies

• Student achievement or performance records

• Content analysis of student products

• Classroom or school election records

• Participation records in student councils

• Student participation records in school or community productions (e.g. theater, musical concerts)

• Student participation records in community service activities

• Student participation records in volunteer peer teaching

• Teacher observations of classrooms

• Vandalism rate and frequency of acts recorded by police and/or school (acts classified by severity)

• Data from the National Education Goals Panel report on safe schools

• Selected items from national surveys conducted by the Department of Justice that include juvenile detention and correctional facilities and local jails.

• National Longitudinal Transition Study

• Select items from adaptive behavior scales or checklists (i.e. Responsibility and Independence Scale for Adolescents, PASS, Scales of Independent Behavior)

• Civics examinations

• Performance on existing rating scales or other self-esteem measures

• School or district behavioral incident reports

• School counselor records

• Classroom meeting agendas and minutes

• Teacher observations

• Parent/guardian interview or survey

• Teacher or school counselor interview or survey

• Student interview or survey

• Selected items from the National Health Interview Survey on children’s behavioral problems (beginning in 1996)

• Student performance on curricular units relating to diversity

• Data on incidents of teasing or harassment

• Records showing student participation in school, church or community activities that encourage diversity

• Cooperative learning groups’ self-assessment

• School routine screening for depression and suicide (e.g. the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale)

• Student self report (i.e. Harter Perceived Academic Competence Scale)

• Use of Social Network Analysis

• Parent/guardian interview or survey

• Student interview or survey

• Analysis of student portfolio entries

• Student focus groups

• School or district statistics

• Teacher interview or survey

• Agenda or minutes of parent/guardian group meetings

• School or district parent/guardian complaint records

• Selected items like those in the Phi Delta Kappan poll

• Parent focus groups

• Selected items from the 1993 National Household Education Survey

• Analysis of public media reports and opinions

• Interview or survey of community members who volunteer or provide service to schools

• Community member survey or interview

• Community focus groups

• Exit performance assessment results

• Number of due process hearings

• Reports from employers or community agencies of their satisfaction

• Data collected from the community as part of the accreditation process

Prepared through a cooperative agreement (H159C50004) between the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), University of Minnesota, and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education.   Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it.

National Center on Educational Outcomes
University of Minnesota
350 Elliott Hall
75 East River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55455

Phone:   (612) 624-8561
Fax:  (612) 624-0879
http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO

Top of page