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
Child Academic Outcomes, Systems, and
Expenditures Findings from SLIIDEA Presented
at the OSEPResearch Project Directors
MeetingJuly 11, 2003Washington, DCFran
OReilly and Ellen Schiller, Abt Associates
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
• Nearly all the states had 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.
• About two-fifths of the districts had separate,
  modified or enhanced content and performance
  standards in these subjects 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.
• Nearly all states allowed and nearly all
  districts provided presentation, setting,
  timing/scheduling, and response accommodations to
  enable students with disabilities to participate
  in state and districtwide assessments.

19
Participation of Students with
Disabilities in Accountability Systems

• Public Reporting
• Use of Results

20
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

21
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
22
Public Reporting (1999-2000)
23
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.

24
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

25
Public Reporting (1999-2000)

• District Reporting Practices
• Over half of the districts conducted districtwide
  assessments that were not required by the state
• While the districts varied in their reporting of
  results for students with disabilities, nearly
  all districts reported scores of students with
  disabilities on these districtwide assessments.

26
Accountability Systems (1999-2000)
27
Use of Results

28
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

29
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

30
Issues and Emerging Trends

31
Emerging Trends

• An infrastructure is evolving in states and
  districts to support the participation of and
  accountability for students with disabilities.
• Most students with disabilities are participating
  in state- and district-wide assessments (a 90
  participation rate reported at the school level)
• Inclusion of students with disabilities in
  accountability systems was at a lesser stage of
  implementation (compared to participation in
  assessments.)

32
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?

33
More SLIIDEA Findings

• www.abt.sliidea.org