The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Educatio - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Educatio

Description:

A Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact ... Year 1 Focus Study (2000-2001) (17 districts, 102 interviews, 49 focus groups) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:111
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 36
Provided by: Layne2
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Educatio


1
The Study of State and Local Implementation and
Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education ActSponsored by the Office of
Special Education Programs,U.S. Department of
EducationConducted by Abt Associates Inc.and
its subcontractors, Westat and SRI
2
Standards andAccountability for Students with
Disabilities Presented at the 2nd National
Summiton the Shared Implementation of IDEA
97June 19, 2003Arlington, VAFran OReilly
and Ellen Schiller, Abt AssociatesKelly
Henderson, Office of Special Education Programs
3
Study Overview
4
Congressionally-Mandated Questions
  • How well are states, districts and schools making
    progress toward
  • Establishing accountability systems
  • Participating in general education curriculum
  • Making effective early childhood and secondary
    transitions
  • Placement in the LRE
  • Reducing drop-outs
  • Using positive strategies for behavioral issues
  • Coordinating services
  • Increasing parent participation
  • Using alternatives to dispute resolution

5
Study Design
  • Five year multi-method longitudinal study of
    states, districts and schools
  • Annual survey of states for four years
  • Three surveys of nationally representative sample
    of districts and schools
  • Case studies of selected districts nested in five
    states, on specific topics

6
Study Sample
  • Year 1 Survey data (1999-2000)
  • State (n100)
  • District (31 response rate)
  • School (40 response rate)
  • Year 1 Focus Study (2000-2001)
  • (17 districts, 102 interviews, 49 focus groups)
  • Year 2 Focus Study (2001-2002)
  • (11 districts, 100 interviews, 50 focus groups)
  • Due to low response rates, a non-response survey
    was completed. No bias was found at the school
    level. Bias was detected at the district level
    and weights were adjusted accordingly.

7
Context on Accountability
8
IDEA 1997 AmendmentsAccountability Provisions
(Sec. 612)
  • Establishment of goals and indicators for the
    performance of children with disabilities
  • Inclusion of children with disabilities in
    general State and district-wide assessment
    programs with appropriate accommodations
  • Development of guidelines for the participation
    of children with disabilities in alternate
    assessments for those children who cannot
    participate in State and district-wide assessment
    programs

9
IDEA 1997 AmendmentsAccountability Provisions
(Sec. 612)
  • Development of alternate assessments
  • Reporting on the number of children with
    disabilities participating in regular state
    assessments and in alternate assessments
  • Reporting on the performance of children with
    disabilities on regular state and alternate
    assessments (disaggregated)

10
Goals and Indicators for Students with
Disabilities

11
Standards (1999-2000)
  • At the state level
  • It was standard practice to have the same content
    standards in math, reading, science and writing
    for all students, including those with
    disabilities.
  • Only a small number of states had separate,
    modified or enhanced content standards for
    students with disabilities in any of the academic
    subjects.

12
Standards (1999-2000)
  • Fewer states had the same performance standards
    for all students.
  • Between 63 and 78 percent of the states used the
    same performance standards for students with
    disabilities and for general education students
    in most of the major subjects.
  • A small number of states had separate, modified
    or enhanced performance standards, and a few
    reported that no decision had been made about
    performance standards for students with
    disabilities.

13
Standards (1999-2000)
  • Districts lagged behind the states
  • About 40 to 45 percent of districts specified the
    same content or performance standards for all
    students in mathematics, reading, science, social
    studies and writing.
  • For math, reading, science, social studies and
    writing, a little under a fifth of the districts
    either had no standards for any students or had
    not made a decision on standards for students
    with disabilities.

14
Participation of Students with Disabilities in
Assessments

15
Participation (1999-2000)
  • Almost all states (96) required districts to
    administer statewide assessments.
  • Almost all schools (96) reported administering
    statewide assessments.
  • Fewer schools (62) reported administering
    districtwide tests.

16
Participation (1999-2000)
17
Participation (1999-2000)
18
Participation (1999-2000)
  • States and districts have been required to
    provide students with disabilities
    accommodations, if needed, to participate in
    state and districtwide assessments.
  • All but one of the 49 states with statewide
    assessments reported that they have a policy
    specifying how decisions about accommodations
    should be made for students with disabilities.
  • 94 of states allowed presentation, setting and
    timing/scheduling accommodations.
  • 92 of states allowed response accommodations.

19
Participation (1999-2000)
  • At the district level
  • All districts provided setting accommodations.
  • Nearly all districts provided for presentation
    (97) and timing accommodations (94).
  • The majority of districts provided response
    accommodations (88).

20
Participation of Students with
Disabilities in Accountability Systems

Public Reporting Use of Results
21
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
  • Beginning in 1998, all states were required to
    separately report the performance of students
    with disabilities to the same extent they
    reported the scores of all other students.
  • -- 63 of states had a policy for how the scores
    from districtwide assessments must be reported
    for students with disabilities

22
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
23
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
24
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
  • For state reports of school level data
  • 88 of states (n45)said they issued reports on
    individual schools that included student
    performance data
  • Most of those states (96) (n43)said they
    included test results of all students.
  • But few states (21) (n9) included separate data
    on the test results for students with
    disabilities

25
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
  • Half of the states that issued reports on
    individual schools included participation rates
    of students with disabilities
  • Fewer than half (42) (n18) reported on the use
    of alternate assessments

26
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
  • District Reporting Practices
  • Over half of the districts conducted districtwide
    assessments that were not required by the state
    and the districts varied in their reporting of
    results for students with disabilities.
  • 52 of these states reported scores for students
    with disabilities

27
Accountability Systems (1999-2000)
28
Use of Results

29
Use of Results (1999-2000)
  • States were more likely than districts to use
    assessment results for rewards or sanctions
  • 62 of states rewarded or sanctioned for
    achievement test results
  • 54 sanctioned for poor performance
  • 48 rewarded for good performance
  • 40 both rewarded and sanctioned

30
Use of Results (1999-2000)
  • At the district level
  • 9 of districts rewarded or sanctioned schools
    based on achievement test results
  • 8 rewarded
  • 1 sanctioned

31
Focus Study Findings
  • Among the nine topics being studied,
    implementation of the accountability provisions
    was a top priority in the study states and
    districts.
  • State accountability provisions have been a major
    influence on district implementation of
    accountability policies.
  • Federal mandates resulting from the 1997
    Amendments were very influential across the study
    states in expanding their focus to include
    students with disabilities.

32
Issues and Emerging Trends

33
Emerging Trends
  • An infrastructure is evolving in states and
    districts to support the challenges of
    participation and accountability for students
    with disabilities.
  • Schools reported 90 of students with
    disabilities participated in state- and
    district-wide assessments.
  • Inclusion of students with disabilities in
    accountability systems was at a lesser stage of
    implementation than participation in
    assessments.

34
At Issue
  • States and districts are struggling to define,
    accommodate and implement appropriate assessments
    for all students with disabilities.
  • How to assess the gray area students? Those
    students who are too high functioning for the
    alternate test and too low functioning (even with
    accommodations) for the regular assessment?

35
More SLIIDEA Findings
  • www.abt.sliidea.org
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com