Published by the National
Center on Educational Outcomes
Number 6 / August, 2002
Upcoming Teleconference to Focus on Building Tests to Support Instruction and Accountability for All Students
Join us on September
30, 2002 as the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) and its partners begin the
second year of quarterly teleconferences on inclusive assessment and accountability with a
timely discussion: “Building Tests to Support Instruction and Accountability for all students.” Co-hosts for this
teleconference are NCEO and the National Association of State Directors of Special
Education (NASDSE). Sponsorship partners also include the network of Federal and Regional
Resource Centers, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and the National
Association of Title I Directors (NASTID).
Dr. Jim Popham,
Professor Emeritus, UCLA, will be the featured presenter, joined by Kansas staff and
federal staff from OSEP and Title I. We will have a one-hour presentation and initial
questions and answers by panelists, followed by a half-hour facilitated discussion.
Future
teleconferences in late fall and winter will continue on this topic to allow more detailed
discussion of how to develop inclusive instruction, assessment and accountability systems
in the context of No Child Left Behind.
The time of the
September 30 teleconference is 8:30 a.m. Pacific, 9:30 a.m. Mountain, 10:30 a.m. Central,
and 11:30 a.m. Eastern. Pre-registration is required. Contact Rachel Quenemoen (quene003@umn.edu) for infor-mation.
NCEO is near
completion of its fifth annual report on state public reporting practices of test
participation and results for students with disabilities. Data collection included a
thorough analysis of results posted at state department of education Web sites, and an
analysis of hard copy accountability reports. Assessment data for the academic year
2000-2001 are covered by the report.
The number of states
publicly reporting participation and performance results for students with disabilities
continued its upward trend, and this is evident in the NCEO report. More states reported
participation and performance results for students with disabilities than in previous
years.
Nearly every state
that reported these results reported them on the Web. This year’s NCEO report, thus,
includes an analysis of the accessibility and clarity of Web-based results. Substantial
variability was found in terms of accessing results with some states providing a clear
link from the homepage to the test results, and other states embedding the results in
other reports or links that were less obvious.
As with prior
reports, this report includes a description of all of the statewide assessments in the 50
states, and analyses of participation and performance results for students with
disabilities. In this report, we have added a section that summarizes trends in test
performance in those states that have been reporting results for at least three years with
the same test.
Our results have
been verified by state assessment directors. Next, we will be verifying our results with
state directors of special education. Please be sure that you verify that we have all the
data for your state that were publicly reported for 2000-2001 assessments.
NCEO is also nearing
the completion of a report on statewide accountability systems that have rewards,
assistance, or sanctions provided for schools or districts. We examined Web sites of state
educational agencies to determine whether accountability systems were in place, were being
phased-in, or were in the development phase. We looked at various indicators used by
states to determine rewards or sanctions, how these indicators were determined, whether a
growth factor was included, and also noted the various “labels” applied to
schools or districts. We also examined what states are using to determine whether schools
receiving Title I services are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP).
Another major focus
of this study was to determine the status of the inclusion of students with disabilities
in state accountability systems. In 2000, we did a similar analysis (Krentz, Thurlow &
Callender, 2000), and found that it was very difficult to locate evidence on state Web
sites that clearly stated that students with disabilities were included in accountability
systems. Although students with disabilities may have been included in the assessments,
their scores may not have been included in the accountability systems; most states did not
specifically state whether students with disabilities were included when defining the
indicators used. Based on our current findings, it appears that more states are clearly
including students with disabilities in accountability determination than in the past.
The passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is causing states to
think about revising their accountability systems. This is in response not only to the
need to have annual testing, but also to ensure that the accountability system is for all
students, including students with disabilities and English language learners.
Many states that
have developed accountability systems for schools receiving Title I funds are now
broadening their systems to include all students. States may simply include the additional
students within their existing accountability systems, or may decide to undergo
significant revamping of their current systems to comply with NCLB. In many states the
legislature was no longer in session by the time the details of NCLB implementation
started to be shared with state departments of education.
With changes
occurring across the country, the data included in our report admittedly represent a
snapshot in time. We noted many changes from the previous study, but those may indeed be
modest in comparison with future modifications in response to NCLB.
NCEO has just
released the report, 2001 State Policies on
Assessment Participation and Accommodations (Synthesis Report 46). NCEO has been
tracking and analyzing state policies on participation in assessments and accommodations
for more than a decade now. This report is an update to information on these policies last
conducted by NCEO in 1999.
State assessment systems continue to evolve as federal
requirements change and more and more students are included in assessment systems. The
current analysis of states’ 2001 participation and accommodations policies confirm
that states’ policies continue to evolve, although the changes are not as dramatic as
in the past. Among the major findings from this analysis are:
•
Participation options beyond the usual three (participation
without accommodations, participation with accommodations, alternate assessment) have
become more evident—generally these are: partial participation, additional alternate
assessments, and out-of-level testing.
•
Policies for both participation and accommodations are becoming
more specific. This is particularly evident in accommodation policies. These
clarifications sometimes indicate the implications for scores, specifically whether they
will be aggregated with other scores.
•
The most controversial accommodations continue to be read aloud,
calculator, and scribe.
Cost of the report
is $20.00 and it can be ordered through the NCEO Publications Office by calling (612)
624-8561; it is also available on the NCEO Web site at http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html.