WHO WE ARE    |   PUBLICATIONS   |  PRESENTATIONS   |  PROJECTS   |   RELATED SITES   |   STAFF   |   SITE MAP   |   SEARCH   |   WHAT'S NEW   |   HOME 

1999 Report on the Participation and Performance of Students with Disabilities on Minnesota's Basic Standards Tests

Minnesota Report 29

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by Sandra Thompson, Martha Thurlow, and Richard Spiccuza

July 2000

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

Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., & Spiccuza, R. (2000). 1999 Report on the participation and performance of students with disabilities on Minnesota's Basic Standards Tests (Minnesota Report No. 29). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MnReport29.html

Overview

The fourth statewide administration of Minnesota’s Basic Standards Tests in Reading and Mathematics took place in the spring of 1999. The first administration of the statewide Test of Written Composition for 10th graders also took place in 1999. Beginning with the class of 2000 (11th graders during 1999 testing), students are required to pass these tests by the time they complete 12th grade in order to receive a high school diploma (there are exceptions for some students with disabilities). This report examines the participation and performance of students with disabilities on the Basic Standards Tests since the first statewide administration in 1996, across grades 8 through 11. Data used in this report were compiled by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning and analyzed by the Minnesota Assessment Project, a collaborative effort between the Department of Children, Families and Learning and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota.

The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97) requires states to report the number and percentage of students participating in state assessments and the performance of those students in the same way and with the same frequency as reported for other students. IDEA 97 has placed greater emphasis on the access of students with disabilities to the general education curriculum and their participation in it, and in the district and state assessments that drive the curriculum. In Minnesota, as in most states, IDEA has set the stage for higher participation rates (see Appendix A for assessment provisions of IDEA 97).

Minnesota is one of only 23 states able to report actual assessment participation rates of students with disabilities (Thompson & Thurlow, 1999). Many states do not yet have the capacity to disaggregate statewide assessment data by disability and if they do, they may not be able to calculate the percentage of students with disabilities actually participating in their assessments. Although assessments have been the primary means to evaluate educational accountability, students with disabilities continue to be excluded to a great extent in many states (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 1998). As will be shown in this report, school districts across Minnesota are to be commended for including over 90% of eighth graders with disabilities in state testing in 1999.

Background Information about Minnesota’s Basic Standards Tests

Minnesota’s Basic Standards Tests in Reading and Mathematics were administered statewide for the first time in 1996. Districts could choose whether to participate in the first testing year. In 1997, participation in testing was required, but districts could choose to use the state-issued tests or different tests. In 1998, all districts were required to give the state tests in both Reading and Mathematics beginning in 8th grade. The Test of Written Composition was initially administered in 1999 for students in 10th grade. All state public high school students entering 9th grade in 1997 or later must pass these tests before graduation. Those in the class of 2000 need 70% of the test items correct to pass, while others will need 75%. Local public school districts may set higher passing scores for their students. In addition to the Basic Standards Tests, students in the class of 2002 (tenth graders in school year 1999-2000) will be required to complete a set of 24 high standards within 10 learning areas to receive a high school diploma.

There are three levels of participation allowed on Minnesota’s Basic Standards Tests for students with Individualized Educational Programs or 504 Accommodation Plans. Students can either take the state tests as generally administered, with accommodations as needed (see list of approved accommodations in Appendix B), take a modified version of the tests and receive the notation “pass-individual” on their high school transcript, or be exempt from testing all together. The Minnesota Rule describing the participation of students with IEPs and 504 plans can be found in Appendix C. As of July 1, 2000, students who were previously exempt from testing will be included through the provision of alternate assessments (see Appendix A).

Method

The Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning collected the data compiled for this report through the MARSS accounting system. Descriptive statistical analyses were then run on these data by Minnesota Assessment Project researchers. Finally, the analyses were translated into tables for discussion in this report. Information contained in this report was reviewed by special education and assessment consultants at the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning.

In the past, there were many students whose test scores could not be accounted for through the state system, because they had missing or inaccurate ID numbers or changes in their names or locations from year to year. (For example, one year a student might be listed as Steve Michaels, the next year Stephen Michaels, and maybe the next year, Michael Stevens!) The data collection system has been refined to the point that, in 1999, less than 200 of the nearly 200,000 students tested have yet to be identified within the system. This is a monumental task, and leaders of the Data Management Team at the Department of Children, Families and Learning are to be highly commended for their careful and accurate work.

Important Considerations

There are several important considerations in the interpretation of the data presented in this report. These considerations fall into six areas: reporting by primary disability; students with Section 504 accommodation plans, date of child count, additional testing opportunities, modifications and exemptions, and other considerations.

Reporting by primary disability. Unduplicated child count data are essential for calculating participation rates—these data become the denominator. Even though many students have multiple disabling conditions, in order to reduce duplication of students, only a student’s primary disability is reported. It is important to keep this caution in mind, since a student’s secondary disability (e.g., learning disability) may affect test scores more than his or her primary disability (e.g., speech impairment). In other words, generalizations or conclusions about participation or performance cannot be based simply on disability category.

Students with Section 504 accommodation plans. Some students are recognized as having disabilities under another federal law—Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In the past, only students receiving special education services were included in these analyses. This year, we have added the participation and performance of students with 504 accommodation plans. The numbers are low, however, possibly indicating that some students are not reported as having 504 plans, or that some students who could benefit from 504 accommodation plans do not have them. In this report, the designation “students with disabilities” includes students with 504 accommodation plans in addition to those receiving special education services.

Date of child count. In previous years, the number of students with disabilities who were eligible for testing was determined through child count information reported to the U.S. Department of Special Education Programs on December 1. This count was taken at least three months before the actual testing date. Enrollment data for the 1999 tests were updated on the test administration day, conceivably making it more accurate, since student attrition is not a factor. The slight change in enrollment is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Change in Enrollment from Dec. 1 Child Count to Test Day

Additional testing opportunities. School districts across Minnesota have an additional opportunity to administer Basic Standards Tests in mid July to students who did not pass the previous spring. Results of summer test administration are not included in this analysis.

Modifications and exemptions. Data for this report include test scores, with “passing” defined as a score at or above 75% (70% for students in the class of 2000). We do not have information about students who were administered modified tests. In other words, if a Reading test was read to a student and the student scored 78%, we have no way of knowing that the test was modified, so we simply included the “78%” with all other test scores. We also do not have information about the number of students who were formally exempt from testing; all we know is the number of students who were not tested (for whatever reason). These designations will be made at the district level on a student’s final transcript.

Other considerations. Other reporting considerations include the ongoing possibility of errors in data. There are now about 1.2 million fields in the MARRS reporting system. As explained above, the number of errors is far fewer than in initial testing years, but no system recording human performance can be error free. Another consideration is that there are some students who are included in the child count who are not tested because they receive their education in private or home-schools. Finally, to protect the privacy of students, the participation and performance of groups with less than 10 students are not reported. Cells in the tables in this report with fewer than 10 students contain the designation “<10”.

Results

Because there are so many ways to look at data across four years of testing, we have chosen to take several different “snapshots” of findings. We decided to examine trends both within a single grade each year (8th graders from 1996 to 1999) and for a cohort of students from 8th grade through graduation (class of 2000). We also wanted to examine the data by disability category, but found it too cumbersome to look at all disabilities across all grades and years. We found that our “snapshot” of 8th graders in 1999 reflected similar trends across disabilities in other grades and years, so those are the data included in this report. Since the test of Written Composition was administered for the first time in 1999, we wanted to show the participation and performance of 10th graders representing all disability categories on this test. Finally, 1999 was the first year data were collected on accommodations with enough clarity to be reported, so these data are also included in this report. In summary, the “snapshots” examined in the following section include:

•     Participation of 8th graders from 1996 to 1999.

•     Participation of the class of 2000.

•     Participation of the 8th graders tested in 1999, by disability.

•     Performance of 8th graders from 1996 to 1999.

•     Performance of the class of 2000.

•     Performance of the 8th graders tested in 1999, by disability.

•     Participation and performance of 10th graders on the 1999 Test of Written Composition.

•     Testing accommodations used in 1999.

Participation of 8th Graders from 1996 to 1999

The participation of 8th grade students with disabilities on the 1999 Basic Standards Tests stands at 90%, the highest yet in the State of Minnesota, and one of the highest large-scale test participation rates of students with disabilities in the country (Thompson & Thurlow, 1999). As shown in Figure 1, this compares to an overall participation rate of 96% for all students. If students with disabilities are removed from the picture, the overall participation rate increases to 97%.