The Mission of the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Acknowledgments
State Directors of Special Education
Executive Summary
Overview of 2003 Survey
Consequences
Participation and Performance
Accommodations
Alternate Assessments
Accountability
Emerging Practices
Current and Emerging Issues
Preferred Forms of Technical Assistance

NCEO Staff
Deb Albus
Mike Anderson
Ann Clapper
Jane Krentz
Kristi Liu
Jane Minnema
Ross Moen
Michael Moore
Rachel Quenemoen
Dorene Scott
Sandra Thompson
Martha Thurlow, Director

This report summarizes the ninth survey of state directors of special educa-tion by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and nine of the eleven federally funded entities (unique states). The purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of the new initiatives, trends, accomplishments, and emerging issues during this important period of education reform as states document the academic achievement of students with disabilities.

Most state directors reported that more students with disabilities are accessing state/district academic content standards with increased academic expectations, and more students with disabilities are participating in statewide assessments and included in accountability systems. The majority of directors also reported improved performance by students with disabilities on state assessments. In addition, nearly all state directors reported increased participation of special educators in training on standards and assessment, and nearly three quarters reported increased networking between general and special educators.

Among the major findings of the 2003 survey are the following:

Though the progress of students with disabilities in this era of standards-based accountability has been noteworthy, states continue to face many challenges in their efforts to increase student achievement and administer assessments that provide valid documentation of this achievement.

This report marks the ninth time over the past twelve years that the

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has collected information from state directors of special education about the participation and achievement of students with disabilities during standards-based reform. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, reform efforts continue to evolve as states become accountable for reaching the goal of academic proficiency for every student.

The 2003 Special Education Outcomes Survey focuses on the implications of educational reform since the 2001 passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and anticipation of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Results are presented in eight sections:

Participants in the 2003 survey included state directors of special education from all 50 states and 11 federal jurisdictions that abide by the provisions of IDEA. These jurisdictions are referred to in this report as "unique states." Responses to the survey were gathered online and via fax during the winter and spring of 2003 (February–May). To view the survey instrument, go to http://education.umn.edu/nceo/NCEOSurveys/2003NCEOsurvey.pdf. Surveys were completed by state directors with the assistance of other state officials representing special education, standards, assessment, and accountability.

Once compiled, drafts of tables were sent to state directors for verification in July and August. Overall, responses were obtained from all 50 regular states and from nine unique states.

As you will read throughout this report, although the progress of students with disabilities in this era of standards-based accountability has been noteworthy, states continue to face many challenges in their efforts to increase student achievement and administer assessments that provide valid documentation of this achievement for accountability purposes.

The "bottom line"—the consequences of inclusive assessment and

accountability—continues to be an important topic for states. In the 2003 survey, states were asked to identify the positive and negative consequences of the participation of students with disabilities in state standards, assessment, and accountability systems that they had observed since 2001 when NCEO last asked them this question. In 2003, the states started from a list based on their 2001 responses. Figure 1 lists the percentages of regular and unique states indicating each of the consequences.

The most often selected positive consequences among the regular states were increased inclusion in the accountability system (96%) and increased participation in state assessments (90%). The most often selected positive consequences among the unique states were increased participation in state assessments (78%) and increased participation of special educators in training on standards and assessment (78%). The least often selected positive consequence was improved performance for both regular states (64%) and unique states (22%). Still, more than half of the regular states selected this as a positive consequence.

In addition to the positive consequences listed in Figure 1, state directors made these comments:

Far fewer state directors selected negative outcomes than positive. The negative outcomes identified are shown in Figure 2. The greatest fear is that students with disabilities will not be able to achieve proficiency on state assessments.

In addition to the negative consequences listed in Figure 2, state directors made these comments:

States are required by IDEA to report the number of students with
disabilities who participate in state assessments. NCLB requires the reporting of participation rates by subgroup, including students with disabilities. States report students who do not participate in state assessments (e.g., absent on test day, parent refusal, hospitalized) in a variety of ways. As in 2001, eight regular states gave these students a score of zero or the lowest score in 2003 (see Figure 3); one unique state also used this approach in 2003. There was an increase from 2001 to 2003 of 7 to 16 regular states that counted students (e.g., count as participating) even though they received no score. Two unique states counted these students in 2003.

Most of the states in the "other" category reported that the way students are reported depends on the reason for non-participation. For example, Delaware’s state director wrote, "It depends on the reason why. For example, if a student does not participate because of truancy that student is counted with the lowest score. If there is an acceptable reason, for example hospitalization, the student is granted a special exemption and there is no accountability consequence." Connecticut commented, "Present but no responses counts as participated for NCLB and in calculations of performance as not proficient. Absent students count as non-participants, but do not count in calculations for performance."

States were beginning to be able to document trends across years in the state assessment performance of students with disabilities (see Figure 4). In 2003, 40 of 50 regular states’ directors of special education (80%) responded that they were able to document trends. Two unique states also reported the ability to document trends across years.

Many states commented on the trends question. Table 1 includes a few examples of states that commented on changes in assessment performance, and states that noted difficulties in reporting trends.

Figure 3. Ways States Count Students Who are Not Assessed

Eighty-four percent of the regular states and 78% of the unique states reported that they collected data on the accommodations that students use on state assessments (see Figure 5). The specific information that is coded by states appears in Table 2. Increasing numbers of states code accommodations information from students’ IEPs onto test forms and then verify that information at testing. Three unique states have also initiated this process.

Note: None of the unique states reported collecting data on accommodations use.