Synthesis Report 62

J. Ruth Nelson
Bethel University

This present study examined the intended and unintended consequences of Minnesota’s high stakes graduation exam on students with disabilities. Historically, little empirical data have been collected and the scant data available suggest some significant unintended consequences for educational accountability systems (e.g., the retention of students and increased referrals to special education). Fifty-two parents of students with disabilities and 39 special educators from six schools in two large urban and suburban school districts participated in focus groups. I also conducted a focus group with the Minnesota Association of Educational Assessment and Evaluation (MAEAE) as well as 15 interviews with building administrators, school district representatives, and a state representative. The results show that the Minnesota Basic Standards Tests have had some very positive and negative consequences for students with disabilities, including increased exposure to the curriculum, increased participation in testing, raised expectations, high levels of anxiety and frustration, and drop-out concerns. There did not seem to be any retention as perceived by the consumers nor an increase in special education referrals, although many times the referral data were not collected in a systematic manner. Further studies are needed to document empirically whether these consequences are occurring for students with disabilities.

Overview

Personnel in two midwestern school districts were dismayed to learn that nearly 40% of their students had failed the recently implemented basic skills exit exam in their state. Performance on this state-created test is linked to graduation from high school. In efforts to improve students’ low performance, one district required failing students to attend summer school (like many other school districts are doing) and retake the exam at the end of the summer. Schools in this district took the results of their high stakes exams and moved forward to provide remediation with the hope that all students, including students with disabilities, would be able to pass and graduate. But is this enough? Who is thinking about and documenting the consequences? Clearly, there are intended consequences. Are they achieved? Are there other unintended consequences for students, especially students with disabilities? Do bad things happen when good things are done? What happens to students with disabilities when they do not pass high stakes graduation exams?

In this report, I briefly describe the historical context of graduation exams, discuss why the participation of students with disabilities in such exams and larger accountability systems is critical, and review the literature on the current status and outcomes of high stakes assessment for students with disabilities. Finally, I present new data on the intended and unintended effects of an exit exam for students with disabilities.

Graduation Exams

Graduation exams have been a part of American education since the late 1960s and early 1970s, when several states implemented minimum competency testing as a partial requirement for high school graduation. Florida was one such state that was pulled into court and made to defend its testing program. In Debra P. v. Turlington (1981), the courts mandated that students have a recognized property interest in receiving a high school diploma, and so these tests should measure what students have been taught, and there must be at least four years of advance notice of the high‑stakes test requirement. For students with disabilities and the lack of coordination between special education resource rooms and the classroom, the implementation of a graduation exam may well serve to widen the gap of successful life outcomes between these students and regular education students.

According to a survey by Guy, Shin, Lee, and Thurlow (1999), 20 states had high school exit exams. In nearly all of the 20 states with an exit exam, students with disabilities were allowed multiple opportunities to take the exam. Four of the 20 states allowed modifications to the exam requirements for students with disabilities (Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas), and Minnesota was the only state that allowed students to be exempted from the test and still able to receive a standard diploma (1999). Texas was the only state in which students with disabilities who were exempted from the graduation exam were required to participate in another assessment. Those states that required a graduation exam generally had more exit documents available to students, but, on the other hand, were more stringent in how students with disabilities could earn a standard diploma (1999). Since then, 22 states added a required graduation exam to their curriculum, and five are in the process of piloting such an exam (Olson, Jones, & Bond, 2001). The growing trend is to require such exit exams that are contingent upon receiving a diploma.

However, there is also quite a bit of flexibility for students with disabilities. Of the 27 states with only course credit requirements for graduation, 20 allowed their students with disabilities to meet the requirements by taking modified coursework or completing IEPs or by having IEP teams or local educational agencies (LEAs) decide the requirements. Of the 19 states that required both credit and exams for graduation, 12 allowed changes in requirements for students with disabilities to earn a standard diploma. Those students who passed their exit exam were all eligible for a standard diploma. Nearly one third of the states had either changed the number of options available to students with disabilities, with more options available, or had changed the standard diploma requirement since Thurlow, Ysseldyke, and Anderson’s 1995 study of graduation requirements for students with disabilities.

Graduation tests are the most popular type of individual accountability mechanism aimed at students and are also “high‑stakes” (Olson, Jones, & Bond, 2001). Individual student accountability is applied as the student must take a test that measures whether he or she has mastered the essential basic skills necessary of a high school graduate. Although nine states use tests that are considered to measure minimum competency (based on 9th grade or lower standards) and most allow an unlimited number of chances to take the exam (Bond & King, 1995), there is very little research that addresses the consequences of graduation testing, especially for students with disabilities. One study by Kreitzer, Madaus, and Haney (1989) compared the 10 states with the highest dropout rates and the 10 states with the lowest dropout rates. They found that 9 of the 10 states with the highest dropout rates had high‑stakes graduation tests, and none of the states with low dropout rates used their tests for high‑stakes purposes.

The limitation in the above research on high‑stakes testing and dropout rates is the lack of evidence that supports a causal relationship or more direct link than mere associations. Further, the researchers did not specifically study the effects for students with disabilities. Reardon (1996) showed with National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS) data that schools most likely to have high‑stakes testing policies were those with high concentrations of students with low social-economic status (SES). Other groups, such as African‑Americans, Hispanics and English language learners, and low SES students are overrepresented in schools in which high‑stakes tests are given and tend to fail these tests at a higher rate than high‑SES and white students (Ecklund, 1980). This leads one to consider what the impact is for students with disabilities who also are members of those above groups. Are students with disabilities among those students who may be encouraged to drop out as a result of their performance on high school graduation exams?

This is distressing as Hauser (1997) provided evidence that failing to complete high school, whether due to graduation tests or other reasons, is increasingly associated with problems in employment, earnings, family formation and stability, civic participation, and health. To compound matters, the earning power of high school dropouts has significantly fallen relative to that of high school graduates. For example, Bishop and Mane (2001) looked at two nationally representative data sets—the High School and Beyond (HSB) seniors of 1980 and the NELS students graduating in 1992. They analyzed the effects of Minimum Competency Exam (MCE) high schools on a person’s earnings (controlling for quality of the high school, individual’s academic achievement through test scores, grade point average, participation in extracurricular activities, and an indicator for taking remedial courses in either math or English). They found that students who graduated from MCE high schools obtained significantly higher paying jobs and kept their pay advantage for the next five years. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds who graduated from an MCE high school earned $694 extra, which amounted to more than a 10 percent increase in comparison to those from non-MCE high schools (2001).

National Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

There is some data from the few studies of students with disabilities’ outcomes that have not been satisfactory (Rossi, Herting, & Wolman, 1997; Wagner, D’Amico, Marder, Newman, & Blackorby, 1992; Wagner, Newman, D’Amico, Jay, Butler‑Nalin, Marder, & Cox; 1991). Limited data are available on the results of outcomes for students with disabilities. The few reports have presented a bleak picture. Most of these reports are from special government studies rather than on‑going data collection programs.

In the mid‑1980s Congress mandated a longitudinal study of students with disabilities. Wagner et al. (1991) found that only 15% of students with disabilities attended a post‑secondary school one year after high school, 30% had not held a paid job, 40% of those employed only worked part‑time, one in five overall had been arrested, and nearly 40% of youth left school by dropping out. After three to five years, about 25% of these same youth were enrolled in post‑secondary vocational schools or 2‑year or 4‑year colleges (Wagner et al., 1992). More recent analyses of the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) of 1988 have shown that students identified by teachers and parents as having a disability earned lower high school grades in core courses, scored lower on math and reading proficiency tests, and were more likely to drop out of school than their counterparts (Rossi, Herting, & Wolman, 1997). These students also had lower educational expectations for themselves and by their parents. These outcomes should motivate researchers to study the outcomes of students with disabilities more carefully, especially in the context of graduation exams and the larger frame of accountability systems.

How Do States Now Account for Educational Results of Students with Disabilities?

In the past, students with disabilities were excluded from the general curriculum, state and district assessments, and accountability systems (Elliott & Thurlow, 1997; Erickson & Thurlow, 1997; Roach & Raber, 1997). A recent study confirms that some teachers are still being encouraged to not include “certain children” in the test because “it would lower our school average” (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000, p. 392), and it is allowable in this state’s test guidelines to exempt special education students from having to take the state test.

In a telling study Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Gutman, and Geenen (1998) report that nearly all states related that their standards were for all children in the state, yet few states defined all to include students with disabilities. Furthermore, when Rhim and McLaughlin (1997) interviewed state officials about whether or not any of the content standards would apply to students with disabilities, 35 states reported that their standards would apply while nine states’ standards would not.

Yet it seems the exclusion of students with disabilities from assessments or accountability systems has in general decreased in recent years. In 1993, only 28 states had formal policies on the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments and only 21 states had written policies on accommodations (Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993). In the most recent update of this study, nearly every state (excluding Nebraska who at the time did not have a statewide assessment and Iowa in which districts gather their own data and set their own policies by district) had policies on the participation and accommodation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments (Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000). Although these numbers look promising, the states vary widely in what they permit as accommodations and some are more flexible than others. Researchers also found that in nearly every state the decision to participate is first determined by the IEP team, but the second most frequent criterion is whether the student had access to the course content.

Recent changes have been made to the participation criteria of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to include more students with disabilities and to offer various accommodations to students with special needs (Ingels & Quinn, 1996; Olson & Goldstein, 1996). Prior to 1995, students with disabilities often were excluded from NAEP for several reasons, including erroneous beliefs that these students could not participate meaningfully or no test accommodations or adaptations were available.

Yet having active policies does not mean that students with disabilities’ scores are included in the scores that are released to the public (Zlatos, 1994). Two Florida elementary schools appealed their rankings because several students with disabilities were “mistakenly” included in their test scores (Gainesville Sun, October 2, 2000, p. B1 as cited in Allington, in press). Even if states may be including more students with disabilities in their assessments, they still may not be publicly reporting student results. Researchers at the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) reported that only 16 states reported disaggregated test‑based outcome data for students with disabilities in their annual state educational accountability documents (Thurlow, Nelson, Teelucksingh, & Ysseldyke, 2000).

Few Data Available

We know some things about the consequences of educational accountability systems for state education agencies, school districts, individual schools, administrators, teachers, parents, and students. However, even fewer data exist on consequences for students with disabilities. This is partially due to the dynamic and highly politicized nature of statewide assessments and educational accountability systems and the lack of attention to students with disabilities.

Now with federal mandates (e.g., IDEA ’97; IASA ‘94) in place that require the reporting of results for students with disabilities, there is a need to track the consequences of these educational accountability reforms. Lane, Park, and Stone (1998) suggest that one should evaluate the intended and unintended consequences of statewide educational accountability and assessment systems. These systems are designed to have an effect on the following: the implemented curriculum; the instructional content and strategies; the content and format of classroom assessments; student, teacher and administrator motivation and effort; the improvement of learning for all students; the nature of professional development support; student, teacher, administrator, and public awareness and beliefs about assessment and student performance; the use of assessment results; and the use and nature of test preparation materials (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989; Koretz, Barron, Mitchell, & Stecher, 1996; Linn, 1993; Messick, 1992).

However, there may also be unintended consequences such as the following: the narrowing of the curriculum and instruction to only focus on the specific learning outcomes assessed; ignoring the broader construct reflected in the specified learning outcomes; the use of test preparation materials that are closely linked to the assessment without making changes to the curriculum and instruction; using questionable test preparation materials (e.g., secure assessment items); finding differential test performance for subgroups of students; inappropriate or unfair uses of test scores; failure to develop higher order thinking skills; and tracking which can lead to lowered achievement (Darling‑Hammond & Wise, 1985; Haladyna, Nolan, & Hass, 1991; Lane et al., 1998; Mehrens, 1998; McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001; National Research Council, 1999; O’Day & Smith, 1993; Rothman, 1996; Shepard & Dougherty, 1991; Texas Education Agency, 1995).

Other researchers (Koretz & Barron, 1998; Neill & Gayler 2001) agree that high-stakes testing does not necessarily equate with improved learning, at least as measured by NAEP and the American College Testing Program (ACT) college admission tests. States without a mandatory high school graduation exam were more likely than those with a test to make gains, both in the percentage of students reaching the basic level of proficiency and the proficient and advanced levels at the eighth grade on the 1992 and 1996 NAEP (2001). Although it is voluntary to participate in the NAEP, this type of evidence seems to indicate that high-stakes testing is not a significant factor to educational gains by students as measured by the NAEP.

On the other hand, in an in-depth case study of a single school district responding to a newly implemented high stakes graduation exam, Schleisman (1999) found that testing policy helped to promote greater curricular coherence to the system. Instead of narrowing the curriculum as suggested by some in the case of Texas (McNeil & Valenzuela, 2001), this exam appeared to increase students’ exposure to similar curriculum across the district and highlighted those students who needed additional help. For example, this district adopted a new math curriculum for the middle and high schools that “reinforce[d] the eight strands of the MBST [Minnesota Basic Standards Test—high school graduation exam] math portion” (p. 10). They also adopted a new K-6 reading series that all elementary schools began using in the fall of 1999. One administrator also mentioned that they needed to continue to align the curriculum and daily teaching across the district in both math and reading, implying that all students would receive a common curriculum (1999).

Texas has been hailed as a leader in its educational reforms, especially with its claim that they have narrowed the gap between students of color and whites. However, Haney argued in the court case GI Forum Image De Tejas et al. v. Texas Education Agency, 87 F. Supp. 667 (W.D. Tex. 2000) and did further empirical study (2000) that he felt showed that this gap only narrowed because large numbers of students were retained in grade 9 and many left school before taking the 10th grade exit exam. RAND researchers examined NAEP performance in 1994 and 1998 and Texas gains on the TAAS (Klein, Hamilton, McCaffrey, & Stecher, 2000). They questioned the validity of their gains because the average test score gains on the NAEP in Texas, except for fourth grade math, were comparable to those experienced nationwide during the same time period. Further, Linton (2000) studied TAAS data from four years to discover why the 1999 TAAS passing rate did not decrease as expected as the Texas Education Agency began to include students with disabilities’ TAAS results. The passing rates remained constant in reading and increased in math and writing, but the percent of special education students receiving exemptions from the TAAS increased significantly. In fact, across the state, almost two-thirds of the African-American students and one-half of the Hispanic students in special education were exempted from the TAAS while less than 40% of white special education students received exemptions (2000). It appears that increasing passing scores on a statewide test do not guarantee an increase in students’ knowledge base. Further, with the pressure to include students with disabilities, these students may be pushed out of the testing picture through exemption, retention, or even drop-out.

Limitations of Previous Research

Previous research has failed to take into account students with disabilities. Some research has been published on teacher and parent perceptions of high stakes testing (Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000), but very few studies are available on the outcomes for students with disabilities, and even fewer studies relate the unintended and intended consequences of students with disabilities to educational accountability systems in place today. Some researchers have begun to explore the effects or consequences of these educational accountability systems for general education, but fewer (e.g., Allington & McGill‑Franzen, 1992) actually document the unintended consequences of these reforms for students with disabilities including retention and overidentification of students with disabilities. This is partially due to the dynamic and highly politicized nature of statewide assessments and educational accountability systems (e.g., the Minnesota state legislature went back and forth about requiring a Profile of Learning for their students). Even Allington and McGill‑Franzen’s work is limited to the state of New York which had state‑specific policies that may have contributed to the observed consequences. Studies on tracking, retention, social promotion, and graduation have begun to show negative consequences for low SES and minority youth. What are the consequences for students with disabilities?

Studies done on over-identification for special education services in connection with high stakes assessment are few. Minnesota is one such state in which researchers found that many school districts did not collect the data in a similar manner from school to school (Minnema, Thompson, Thurlow, & Barrow, 2000). For those few districts with some data on high school referrals, there did not appear to be a trend toward increased referral for services (Minnema et al., 2000), yet the first class which had to pass the Minnesota Basic Standards Tests had not yet graduated at the time of their study, and Minnesota is the only state that allows a modified passing score for students with disabilities.

In 1996, the Minnesota State Legislature mandated that all students must take a BST in 8th grade in order to graduate from high school. A voluntary pilot run was completed during the 1995–1996 school year, and five years with numerous testing sessions have since occurred. Nearly 70% of regular education students passed the Reading Test in 1996, while only 24% of students with disabilities passed the same exam (Thurlow, Albus, Spicuzza, & Thompson, 1998). At the same time, 38% of students with disabilities passed the Math Test while 83% of students without disabilities passed (1998). However, these results only reflect the results of 70% of students with disabilities. Of the most recent data available on the MBST results of students with disabilities, Thompson, Thurlow, and Spicuzza (2000) found that over 90% of eighth grade students with disabilities had been included in the Spring 1999 testing session. As the required percentage correct has risen (e.g., from 70% to 75%) and participation has increased, students with disabilities’ scores have actually improved in reading (33% on the Reading Test), but have fallen in math (27% on the Math Test) (Thompson et al., 2000). Over one-third of all students who participated in summer school in 2001 passed the MBSTs in reading, math, and writing (Gray, 2001). More recent scores compiled by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (CFL) (2001) include students with disabilities’ scores in the aggregate state and district scores, but do not specifically disaggregate their results.

Though the math scores from 1996 through 1999 may seem discouraging, it is important to acknowledge the work of Ysseldyke and Bielinski (2002) that shows that these scores may be affected by changes in classification and may not be the most accurate reflection of the academic progress of students with disabilities. Overall, however, their performance is considerably lower than students without disabilities, and yet they have the potential to be just as successful on these exams. With these data in mind, it is an opportune time to document the perceived intended and unintended consequences of the MBST for students with disabilities in the state of Minnesota.

Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to document perceived intended and unintended consequences of the MBSTs for students with disabilities through focus group and interview methodology in two large school districts, an urban site and a suburban site. In completing this study, I addressed the following research questions:

• What do principals, parents, teachers, and district personnel observe as intended and unintended consequences of the Minnesota Basic Standards Tests for students with disabilities?
• What are the observed consequences for special education services? To what extent are there increased referrals for special education services? Is there more retention of students (with disabilities) from grade to grade?

Study Design

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study of intended and unintended outcomes is based on Stake’s countenance model of evaluation (Stake, 1967), which calls for documentation of antecedent conditions, transactions, and outcomes (See Figure 1 for Stake’s model adapted to the current proposed study). Stake suggests that evaluators document both intended and observed antecedent conditions, transactions, and outcomes. For this particular study, I focused on observed event(s) or outcomes in the form of intended and unintended consequences as perceived by parents of students with disabilities, special educators, and school district and state department personnel. As Minnesota’s Basic Standards Tests have been in place for the past five years, I will not be looking at the “Anticipated Event(s)” construct of Stake’s model.

Figure 1: Adaptation of Stake’s Model

 
For purposes of this study, I documented perceived intended and unintended outcomes for students with disabilities through focus groups and interviews in two large Minnesota school districts.

Data Gathering Tools

I completed an exploratory study of key stakeholders’ perceptions of the anticipated and observed (intended and unintended) consequences of including students with disabilities in a developing educational accountability system (i.e., Minnesota). Measures and analysis procedures for each research question are shown in Table 1. Both measures are described briefly here. I completed 20 focus groups with special education teachers (N=6) and parents of students with disabilities (N=14) as well as 15 interviews with school administrators, district representatives, and state representatives (see Table 2). Tables 2 and 3 outline the number of sites and respondents in this study. Data were collected in one school district from 1999-2000, and in a second school district from 2000-2001..

Table 1. Research Questions and Methodology
 

Table 2. Number of Focus Groups & Interviews by Site

Table 3. Number of Respondents in Minnesota

Focus groups. To address the three research questions, one hour focus groups were held with 10–12 participants (e.g., teachers and parents of students with and without disabilities). I obtained approval from the district Human Subjects’ Committees (as well as the University of Minnesota’s Human Subjects Committee), and then obtained cooperation from three principals in each district. I completed at least two parent focus groups for every school included in the study (six schools) for a total of 12 parent focus groups. Two more focus groups were conducted for sites in the suburban district for a total of 14 parent focus groups because of low attendance across the first two parent groups. One special education teacher focus group was completed for each school building, usually at an early morning or after school staffing (total of six focus groups). I also completed a focus group with seven members of the Minnesota Association of Educational Assessment and Evaluation. These focus groups occurred in two middle schools and four high schools in the school districts. Parents and special educators were reimbursed $20 for their participation in a one-hour focus group (AEAE members were not reimbursed for their time). Part of these funds were provided by a University of Minnesota doctoral dissertation grant.

Interviews. I conducted and tape recorded one‑hour interviews with every school building principal and one assistant principal who was in charge of the testing in the high school building (seven administrator interviews with two school districts), the district directors of research and assessment (2), the district directors of special education (2), the district directors of curriculum and instruction (2), and state department personnel (2). The state department personnel included an individual who no longer worked for the state, but was a state trainer in administering the MBST. The other individual was an Educational Specialist whose responsibilities included coordination of the Comprehensive System of Personnel Development or the system that mandates staff development for special education teachers. This person had been in the position for 12 years, and served as the point of contact for all of graduation standards requirements, including Minnesota’s Basic Standards Tests. This CFL official was recommended by the Director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes, Dr. Martha Thurlow, who in the past had worked closely with this individual on a subgrant research project pertaining to the MBST.

I mailed or faxed a two‑page abstract of the study’s purpose and design to invite principals of middle and high schools to participate, and followed up with a phone call to each principal.

Data Management and Analysis

While conducting interviews and focus groups, I listened for inconsistent comments and offered a summary of key questions and statements in order to seek confirmation. I tape recorded each focus group session (except for one due to investigator error) as well as each interview. Immediately after each focus group, we drew a diagram of seating arrangements, spot checked the tape recording, and labeled any field notes taken. Only one tape was difficult to hear; all other tapes were transcribable. A typist was hired to transcribe the majority of the large number of data tapes. I reviewed each transcript checking for major errors. When all focus groups and interviews had been completed, I coded the data into categories through the help of qualitative analysis software—QSR N5 (formerly known as Nu Dist). As instructed by Miles & Huberman (1994) and Krueger & Casey (2000), I first coded the data, organized it into an accessible, compact form to facilitate analysis, and drew conclusions by looking for emerging themes by research questions. The categorized list of consequences was examined for big ideas, internal consistency, frequency or extensiveness, intensity, and specificity of comments. Some of the ideas were only mentioned by one or two people, but if it was said with intensity and great emotion, I made a note of it as instructed by Krueger and Casey (2000). Analysis procedures for each research question are listed in Table 1. Written reports with illustrative quotations for each research question were prepared.

Reliability Study

Three research associates and a research assistant from the National Center on Educational Outcomes of the University of Minnesota completed a reliability check in August, 2001, after the principal investigator had completed two months of data analysis. These evaluators were given quotations categorized into various subgroup topics (e.g., participation and accommodation, exposure to curriculum, referral for special education services, tracking, high expectations, IEP, anxiety and stress, frustration and drop-out.). Evaluators were asked to compose their own themes after reading the quotations by parents of students with disabilities, special educators, administrators, and directors of assessment. Percent agreement was calculated to determine the extent to which generated themes were defined by the outside researchers. The percent agreement was 92%, suggesting a high level of inter rater agreement.

Results

The perceived consequences of the MBSTs for students with disabilities included: curriculum changes; participation and accommodation use; performance results; a growing seriousness among students; logistics of testing; frustration by students with disabilities; and long-term opportunities for students with disabilities (see Table 4 for frequency counts of these perceived consequences). Among the chief perceived consequences, all groups discussed the perceived impact on formal and informal curriculum opportunities.

Test-Driven Curriculum

There was consensus among parents of students with disabilities, special education staff, principals, and members of the AEAE that there has been a concerted effort to revise, redesign or add to curriculum for students with disabilities, whether it be formal opportunities (remediation curriculum) or informal opportunities (test preparation activities, tutoring). As several special education staff and administrators reported, these basic skills of reading, mathematics, and writing are being worked on in all curriculum areas if they weren’t before. Student results have spurred on new learning opportunities and helped to raise expectations for students with disabilities.

Test-driven curriculum demanded consistency across staff. One staff put together a “SamePage booklet” that listed concepts and ideas that every teacher in the middle school building had to follow when they taught certain things (such as the writing process, editing symbols, how to complete group work, and doing research).

Table 4. Frequency Counts of Perceived Consequences of the MBST for Students with Disabilities (SWD)

Reading is now being explicitly taught at the upper grade levels. However, one member of the AEAE discovered that for English language learners and students with disabilities, there may be some confusion as to who is actually teaching them reading. The language arts department may be teaching literature, and another department may assume that reading is being taught by the language arts department. Some members of the AEAE thought that the MBST helps to highlight missing instruction and to correct it. However, this director of assessment was very concerned because this lack of coordination of instruction was happening in her district for both of those special populations even with all the extra attention given to reading preparation.

Developing Skills Through More Opportunities

Some teachers have perceived that they have become more creative in providing additional opportunities for students to develop and hone their reading, writing, and math skills. One district instituted an independent reading program in which students received a grade at the end of the quarter for the number of books they read. Due to the influence of the writing test, special education staff and parents have noted that their students are being required to write more papers across their various classes. One special education teacher noted that “many did not know how to write a paragraph.” One special education staff member also observed a couple English teachers offering more short stories with 10 comprehension questions, similar to the format of the MBST, on a weekly basis. Special education teachers also discussed the increased focus on comprehension development, especially in the 7th and 8th grades.

Another creative teacher began a daily math problem for students to complete. One parent noted the change in curriculum towards a more problem-solving approach in math. Although this cannot be verified, some of the teachers, administrators, and school district personnel perceived that curriculum has been changed, but not just from the impact of the MBSTs, but more so in relation to higher standards as set forth in the Profile of Learning. As both basic standards tests and high standard graduation requirements were being implemented at the time of this study, these above statements cannot be verified.

Increased Exposure to the Regular Education Curriculum and Raised Expectations

As noted above, reading is being taught explicitly at the middle and high school levels now in both districts. High schools have hired reading specialists because students have needed direct reading instruction. Due to these changes in the curriculum, staff and parents have seen that students are being exposed to a basic skills curriculum and are meeting raised expectations. Both special education staff and parents have noted “in the past... [students with disabilities] weren’t being exposed to some of the curriculum that they maybe would have needed.” State department personnel also mentioned the increased inclusion of students with disabilities in choosing classes and special education teachers paying close attention to what’s happening in the general education curriculum. Students with disabilities have surprised their parents and teachers in being able to meet those high expectations placed on them.

Evidence of skills-related goals in the IEP. One special education staff was concerned about how the MBST has influenced the writing of the IEP. This staff believed that their IEPs have become more and more based on skills needed for the MBST, and not on the basis of the student’s personal needs and skill development. Some educators argued that this focus on basic academic skills is very appropriate for students with disabilities. However, a few parents voiced their concerns that their child’s individual needs, especially in other areas (e.g., social skills, other content areas) were not addressed. One parent felt that her child was conveniently placed into different standards preparatory classes and that the individuality of her child’s IEP was not honored at the high school level. In other words, she did not feel that her daughter’s particular academic skill weaknesses were being addressed in the prep class which, in her mind, could lead to due process issues.

No room for electives. A perceived unintended consequence of the focus on the basic skills of math and reading is the lack of opportunity for students with disabilities to take elective courses that might help to develop their strengths and vocational interests. Special education staff, administrators and members of the AEAE also discussed the tension between offering electives and taking courses in order to get the diploma. Both parents and educators appear to want students to be competent in math and reading, and yet still be able to develop other interests and skill areas. These groups, however, also see the necessity of students earning a diploma.

Focus on the Basics and Test Preparation

Administration, parents, and special education staff described the use of practice tests across both metropolitan districts. These tests are typically produced by the district office. Much time and effort goes into preparing for the basic skills tests in the classrooms. As one special education teacher said, “That’s done from the beginning of September and they start that from when they walk into school….” In one middle school, the special education staff described how the school staff has set aside 46 minutes of uninterrupted time (“primetime”) one day a week for math and one day a week for reading in 8th grade. Staff in the 5th and 7th grades have also begun to follow this pattern. The staff in that building has made a concerted effort to teach content in addition to some test-taking skills right before the exams.

Practice tests via the Internet. For those parents and students who have access to the Internet, the two school districts have given students Web site addresses for practicing their math and reading skills. Students can take the pretest and get their results. However, many urban parents discussed that they did not have Internet access at home. For those families that used this Internet tool, parents stated that they really appreciated it for checking on their student’s progress. A lack of access to computer technology varies considerably within both school districts.

Other test preparation resources. As a result of the incredible pressure to do well on these tests, a number of publishers are producing self-help books such as Passing the Minnesota Basic Standards Test in Math (Pintozzi & Pintozzi, 2000a) and Passing the Minnesota Basic Standards Test in Reading (Pintozzi & Pintozzi, 2000b). One school district created a guide that gives practice exams, testing strategies, and lists tutoring resources. One principal discussed that they had purchased an online testing service for math and reading for $1,000 a year. Another principal bought software that students could walk through in a computer lab on their own and work on their skills. He was surprised how many students chose to make use of this after-school option versus one-on-one instruction with a teacher. Two suburban parents described paying $250 for their student to take a course at a university for three hours a day for eight weeks. Both school districts are also providing meals and snacks and sending notes home to parents to remind them to get their child to bed, to give them a good breakfast, and to bring several pencils the day of the test.

Test-taking and relaxation techniques. In trying to prepare anxious students and students who struggle with test-taking in general, quite a few special education teachers reported teaching more test-taking strategies to students with disabilities. In order to help alleviate students’ anxiety, a couple special education staff members discussed visiting the testing site (especially if it’s not in the school building) and going through practice runs with all the students. Entire buildings often will run a simulation of the testing day. This helps the administration logistically figure out what needs to happen so that the testing day runs smoothly.

Teaching to the test or meeting needs? With all of this test preparation, staff may question whether they are teaching to the test or meeting the needs of students. One administrator shared that the building in his district that had the highest gain scores also devoted the most time to test preparation and building math and reading skills. There seems to be a fine line between preparing students adequately for the MBST and teaching to the test. Several parents were not happy with the amount of time some schools devoted to test preparation. One special educator at a middle school setting described how she began naturally adapting her curriculum to match the test, even in creating her class tests.

Individual tutoring. One district provided individual tutoring to those students who still had not passed the MBST by the end of 10th grade. In the suburban district of this study, one of the high school’s 11th and 12th graders received individual tutoring in both math and reading, as one administrator stated, “…even our special ed. kids by regular ed. teachers...” The high schools in both districts offered extra after school help, one for the months of October through January. Both of the middle schools in both districts held Tuesday/Thursday sessions after school for four weeks in January. One district representative discussed what he called “bird dogging” where teachers are given a small group of students to target throughout the school year and to encourage their progress in preparation for the MBSTs. This is another informal opportunity for students with disabilities to have exposure to the curriculum and to increase their skills.

Remediation Options

The suburban school district personnel were not pleased with the small number of students who scored in the upper levels on the third grade reading Minnesota Comprehension Assessments (MCAs). In response to that concern, the district has been working on an “improvement in reading” project as well as connecting with early childhood special education programs in order to encourage early literacy development. The urban district also had a literacy project that was recently formed to build student reading skills. At the high schools in the suburban district, a reading specialist was hired and a reading improvement course was offered as well as a reading and English resource class. One principal at a high school discussed his surprise