ED 395 430 .

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 304 824

Including Students with Disabilities in StatewideAssessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of theIssues.

Education Service Center Region 4, Houston, Tex.Texas Education Agency, Austin.Sep 95102p.

Region IV Education Service Center, ATTN: Dr.Francine Holland, 7145 West Tidwell, Houston, TX77092 ($7 per copy).Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.Academic Achievement; *Accountability; ChangeStrategies; *Disabilities; *Educational Assessment;Educational Policy; Elementary Secondary Education;Focus Groups; Program Implementation; SchoolDistricts; Standards; State Programs; StudentEvaluation; *Student Participation; *TestingPrograms

IDENTIFIERS *Testing Accommodations (Disabilities); *Texas

ABSTRACT

This study examined critical issues related toincluding students with disabilities in the Texas assessment andaccountability system and recommended a plan of action to addressthese issues. The statewide stakeholder group examining the issuesfocused particularly on local implementation barriers. The reportbegins with a discussion of assessment and accountability practicesin Texas, followed by examination of four critical areas identifiedby the focus group: participation, accommodations, reporting, andimplementation. High stakes accountability was seen as the underlyingbarrier to greater participation rates in state assessments bystudents with disabilities. Local variability and inconsistencies inallowable accommodations were found. Many questions about reportingof results for these students were raised, and significant obstaclesto implementing expanded assessment and accountability systems werefound. The recommended action plan addresses networking, research,and development in the four major areas. Appendices include detailson the proje.q, information on its national context, resourcedocuments use..!, and information on related issues. (Contains 23references.) (DB)

***********************************************************************Ic

Reproductions supplied hy EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

Offce 01 &Air-amine RIIIIIWCO aid impreeimeriEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)'bits document has been %produced asewed from the person or organization

originating it.

O Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

IncludingStudents withDisabilities in StatewideAssessmentandAccountability Systems:A Study of theIssues

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

Developed by a statewidestakeholder focus group

under a grant from

The Texas Education Agencyto

Region IV Education Service Center

Se-mber, 1995

PY$.:,''.03.:2:EvMs5:1:3:0',ORR.MR;;M:.v-Sii:Za."`"*IpraniMMKIMMW"EME.VngKs.?$':,MX:.:::4,Z,..M:q.... .",:-. me^

...

SKR

STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATIVES

project Focus Group:Taus Council of Administrators of Special EducationCarolyn Lindau, Special Education DirectorYsleta ISD, El Paso, Texas

Learning Disabilities AssociationLi Nelle Gallagher, Vice President for LegislationLearning Disabilities Association, Richardson, Texas

Texas Education AgenoSpecial EducationMarty Murrell, Program Director, Services for

Visually ImpairedTexas Education Agency, Austin, Texas

Governor's Continuing Advisory Committee forSpecial Education

Cheryl Washington, TeacherConverse ISD, Converse, Texas

Texas Educational Diagnosticians AssociationToni Hopper, PresidentTexas Educational Diagnosticians AssociationTemple, Texas

Texas Association of School AdministratorsRolando M. Pena, SuperintendentRio Hondo ISD, Rio Hondo, Texas

Texas Association of Supervisors and CurriculumDirectors

Dr. Gonzolo Ramirez, Assistant Superintendent ofFederal Programs

Lamesa ISD, Lamesa, Texas

Texas Association of School PsychologistsDr. Sue McCullough, Associate ProfessorTexas Woman's Univeisity, Denton, Texas

Parent Dr. Wayde ShipmanLeague City, Texas

Advocacy Groups:Texas Association for Retarded CitizensDenise Brady, Governmental Affairs SpecialistAustin, Texas

Advocacy, Inc.Kay Lambert, Director, Program Services for

Developmental DisabilitiesAustin, Texas

Te.ras Council of Administrators of Special EducationBetty Chappee, Director of Special EducationLa Porte ISD, La Porte, Texas

Texas Council for Exceptional ChildrenDr. Phillip Swicegood, Professor of Special EducationSam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas

Texas Education Agency- AccountabilityDr. Marianne Vaughan, Executive Assistant to tile

Executive Deputy Commissioner for AccountabilityTexas Education Agency, Austin, Texas

Institutions of Higher EducationDr. Jackie Alexander, Dean, School of Education and

Clinical StudiesOur Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas

Texas Mental Health Mental Retardation AuthorityDr. Regenia Hicks, Deputy Director, Division of Child

and Adolescent ServicesMental Health Mental Retardation Authority, Houston, Texas

Texas Association of School BoardsGeorge McShan, Dean of InstructionTexas State Technical College Harlingen, Harlingen, Texas

Texas Elementary Principals and SupervisorsAssociation

Peggy Lynch, Principal, Carver ElementaryAmarillo ISD, Amarillo, Texas

Texas Schdol for the DeafPoorna Rajagopalan, Educational Research SpecialistTexas School for the Deaf, Austin, Texas

Parent Mary DurheimMcAllen, Texas

Te.ras Planning Council for Developmental DisabilitiesClaude Wilson, Public Policy AssistantAustin, Texas

National Consultants:

Dr. Jim YsseldykeDirector

Dr. Martha Thur lowAssistant Director

National Center on Educational Outcomes forStudents with Disabilities

University of MinnesotaMinneapolis, Minnesota

Region IV Education Service Center Staff:

Project Director:

Dr. Francine HollandProgram Director for Special Education

Project Facilitators:

Jane PotterProgram Director for General Education

Dr. Muffet LivaudaisCoordinator General Education

Jamie MorrisCoordinator Special Education

Lois MoseleyCoordinator General Education

Jackie TownsendCoordinator Special Education

Additional copies of this document may be purchased for $7 per copy from:Region IV Education Service Center

ATTN: Dr. Francine Holland7145 West Tidwell

Houston, Texas 77092-2096(713) 744-6365

including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessmentand Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Executive SummaryIntroductionProject AssignmentCritical IssuesAssumptions Underlying an Action Plan for Texas iiRecommended Action Plan iiSummary and Implications iii

11 41 41 41 41 41 11 41 10 41 11 41 41 41 41 10 41 11 41 41 11 10 41 41 41 41 41 41 11 1/ lb 11 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 lb 41 111 41 41

Introduction 1

Purpose 1

The National Context 2National Data Collection 2Statewide Assessments 3

Assessment and Accountability Practices in Texas 4History of State Assessment and Accountability 4State Assessment System 7

Description of Assessment System 7Current State Assessment Practices Related to

Students with Disabilities 7Other Assessment Efforts 7

State Accountability System 8Description of Accountability System Reporting 8Accountability Systems Reporting as Related to

Students with Disabilities 10Current Educational Reforms Related to Assessment

and Accountability 12

Critical Issues 12Participation Issues 13Accommodations Issues 16Reporting Issues 18Implementation Issues 19

Assumptions Underlying An Action Plan for Texas 20

An Action Plan for Texa- 23

Recommended Action Plan 25

Summary and Implications of the Recommended 38Action Plan

Required Resources 38Return on Investment 38Additional Determinations 39

EXHIBITSExhibit 1: Initial Sources of Information for Focus GroupExhibit 2: Guide to AcronymsExhibit 3: Glossary of TermsExhibit 4: ResourcesExhibit 5: Crosswalk of Issues and Action Plan StrategiesExhibit 6: States' Estimates of the Percentage of Students with Disabilities

Participating in Statewide Assessments of Academic AchievementExhibit 7: S' ate's Self-Reported Decision Rules for the Participation of

Students with Disabilities in Statewide AssessmentsExhibit 8: States' Self-Reported Accommodations Allowed in Statewide Assessments

APPENDICESAppendix A: Project DescriptionAppendix B: The National ContextAppendix C: Resource DocumentsAppendix D: Related IssuesAppendix E: TAAS Coordinator Manual

6

'

C,.**42a.**:::,.4.2" EVA..

Introduction

Within national and state educational reform move-ments, greater emphasis is being placed on students withdisabilities being a part of the accountability system.Although nearly all students are included in the Texasaccountability system through their dropout and atten-dance rates, over 50% of studer.ts with disabilities areexempted from state assessments, and there is consid-erable variability in the exemption rates within districtsand campuses. Recent legislation in Texas (Senate Bill1, Texas Education Code, May, 1995) requires that anassessment system be developed for all students cur-rently exempted from state assessments, and that theirperformance results be included in the accountabilitysystem reports.

Project Assignment

A statewide stakeholdtz group was convened to developa document for the Texas Education Agency whichexamined the critical issues related to including stu-dents with disabilities in the Texas assessment and ac-countability kistem. This focus group was also askedto develop a recommended plan of actions designed toaddress the imes. It was not the charge of the focusgroup to develop Iht solutions" to each issue, nor toaddress an extensive set of related issues, although thesewere noted for further consideration (e.g. other stu-dents with special needs, quality of the current stateassessment instrument, adequacy of Individual Educa-tional Plars).

In examining the issues, current state policies, proce-dures, and guidelines were taken into account by thefocus group. The discussion of issues centered morearound local implementation barriers than whether ornot standards were in place at the state level. It wasacknowledged that some remedies should be pursuedat the policy level. Hov.e.ver, with a continuing shifttoward more responsiblity at the local level (i.e. site-based decision making; emphasis of Senate Bill 1),oversight of practices at the local level were designatedas the greatest challenge.

Critical Issues

The Texas Education Agency directed that the issuesbe defmed in four major areas: participation, accom-modation, reporting, and implementation. The focusgroup reached consensus on a total of 29 issues. Abrief synopsis includes:

Participation

High stakes accountability was seen as theunderlying barrier to greater participationrates in state assessments by students withdisabilities. Related assessment conclu-sions centered around local variability indecision-making about who should partici-pate, the appropriate use of exemptions,and a lack of appropriate assessment op-tions.

Accommodation

The allowable use of accommodations forstate assessments was characterized as in-consistent in practice. Concerns were notedabout local varial-ility in decision-makingabout the use, soundness, and appropri-ateness of accommodations.

Reporting

The need to incorporate assessment resultsfor students with disabilities into the ac-countability system raised questions ofwhere scores should be reported(i.e. homecampus/district), how they should be re-ported (i.e. categorically', change in per-formance over time; clearly interpreted),and whether they should be reported dif-ferently (i.e. separately from data for non-special education students; standard ad-ministration vs. use of accommodations/alternative assessments).

Implementation

To implement expanded assessmentand accountability systems in Texas,obstacles to be overcome were identi-fied as attitude, limited available re-sources, contradictions with existingstate and federal statutes, and the highstakes purpofes for which these systemsare used.

Assumptions Underlying an ActionPlan for Texas

A set of nine assumptions related to assessment andaccountability guided the completion of the recom-mended action plan. The focus group came to consen-sus on the basic tenets which would underly the devel-opment of strategies to be recommended to the TexasEducation Agency.

The assumptions related to the accountability systemdescribed a single, comprehensive accountability sys-tem, characterized as fair, encompassing diversity, en-suring continuous improvement, including training pro-visions, and supporting the improved performance ofand expectations for students with disabilities.

Assessment assumptions centered around the need forand development of an alternative assessment system,with assurances of reasonable accommodations andcompliance with state and federal nondiscriminationregulations.

Recommended Action Plan

Clearly, it was more difficult to reach consensus on theaction plan. It was recognized by the focus group thatthere are not quick, simple, easy-to-implement solu-tions to the complex issues identified in this document.The strategies recommended in the action plan werecategorized into three components: networking, re-search, and development. The development strategieswere further subdivided into assessment, policy, re-porting, and training. Recommendations are sum-marized as:

Networking

Strategies were included to eliminate du-plication of don in Texas. These strate-gies contained suggestions forformal link-ages among Texas, national entities, andother states. Collaboration on ongoingresearch and development activities shouldinclude those related to:

a) previously developed alternativeassessment systems,

b) decision-making guidelines,c) legal issues, andd) reporting procedures for state and

national assessment and accountabil-ity system.

Research

Recommended research strategies encom-passed ongoing follow-up studies of stu-dents with disabilities to determine theappropriateness of exemptions and to trackthe unintended consequences of includingthese students in the assessment and ac-countability systems.

Development

Development strategies endOrsed by the fo-cus group identified the following needs:

Assessment - Extensive development of analternative assessment system was recom-mended, to include an advisory group ofpractitioners to give guidance to futurestate assessment revisions and develop-ment considerations.

Policy - At the policy level, developmentstrategies described the need for guidelinesfor decision-making about assessment op-tions and appropriate accommodations.

Reporting - Reporting strategies focusedon the need for a reporting system inclu-sive of the results for students with disabili-ties,witha design for differentiated report-ing, a phase-in requirement, an assignment

of results to the home campus/district, theuse of indicators of progress over time, anda concise description of the system forpublic use.

Training - In order to ensure the success-ful implementation of new assessment andaccountability reporting systems, strategieswere recommended to develop training forimplementation and for analysis and ap-plication of results to districtIcampus im-provement planning.

Summary and Implications

The focus group recognized that the recommendationswill take time to implement, should be appropriatelyphased in, and will require the allocation of consider-able resources. Determination will need to be maderegarding the intent of the Senate Bill 1 requirementsnot only io develop an alternative assessment system,but also to include assessment results in the account-ability reports. Many suggestions in the action planwill be dependent on the findings of research on addi-tional technical issues in the assessment of students withdisabilities. Other recommendations will require sig-nificant changes in the ways in which people think abouteducation, assessment, and accountability for all stu-dents. However, the ultimate return on the investmentwill be the assurance of accountability for the successand progress of all students served by the public schoolsystem in Texas.

%-+

nc u inu en s withisa i i ies inae lessess ent

anccoun a Huys e s:

u o thessues

10

Including Students with Disabilitiesin Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems:

A Study of the Issues

INTRODUCTION

tudents with disabilities comprise appmximately10% of the nation's schoolage population (Six-teenth Annual Report to Congress on the Imple-

mentation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-tion Act, 1994). In addition to having single or mul-tiple identified disabilities that may interfere with learn-ing, they also share educational risk factors with otherschool populations. These may include high dropoutrates, high unemployment rates, and restricted life op-portunities due to limited skill preparation for post-school environments (Bates, 1994).

Educational reform is directed toward measuringprogress toward educational goals for all of the stu-dents served by the public school system. However,exclusion from the accountability system of any por-tion of the student population results in decisions be-ing made with incomplete data. When students withdisabilities are left out of the assessment process andthe subsequent results data, they are also left out of anyreform effort (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, McGrew, & Shriner,1994).

In order to address this issue in Texas, the Texas Edu-cation Agency awarded a six-month grant to the Re-gion IV Education Service Center (ESC) in April, 1995,to facilitate the work of a statewide focus group of stake-holders. The directive of the TEA was to develop adocument that identifies critical issues related to in-cluding students with disabilities in Texas' statewideassessment and accountability systems. This documentrepresents:

a) the collective thinking of a focus group of morethan 20 stakeholders who participated in its de-velopment,

b) consultative advice from TEA staff,c) input from statewide advocacy groups, andd) feedback each focus group member solicited from

the constituent groups they represented.

The paper includes infonnation on national educationalreforms in assessment and accountability for studentswith disabilities as related to this movement in Texas,and current assessment and accountability practices inthe state. Based on the critical issues identified by thefocus group, consistent with continuing Texas educa-tional reform, a list of assumptions and a recommendedaction plan were developed.

1

Purpose

This document should serve multiple purposes. First,it will identify the progress Texas has made in the de-velopment of state policies/procedures/guidelines forassessment and accountability as they relate to studentswith disabilities. Second, it will outline concerns iden-tified by the project focus group about how these arebeing implemented in the field. Third, it will providesuggested actions that the Texas Education Agency maywant to consider as it expands the reporting of data forstudents with disabilities in the state's assessment andaccountability systems.

Although this work was commissioned and begun priorto the completion of the nsw Texas Education Code(TEC) as passed by the 74th Thxas legislature in May,1995, there was significant tracking of the new legisla-tive requirements. Therefore, a fourth and final pur-pose of this work should be to support the commis-sioner of education, who is required by the new TEC(Senate Bill 1, Section 39.027) to develop and proposean assessment system for evaluating the progress ofstudents exempted from current state assessments.

The stakeholders worked together during several meet-ings as a focus group to (1) verify the extent to whichissues for other states are issues for Thxas, (2) clarifycritical issues forThxas, (3) identify a set of fundamentalassumptions to guide assessment and accountability

1 i

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

efforts in Texas, and (4) develop a recommended ac-tion plan for addressing the issues in Texas. Much ofthe initial information provided to the focus group wasdrawn from several sources. These sources are identi-fied in Exhibit 1. In addition, advocacy groups andstaff from a number of divisions within the Texas Edu-cation Agency provided the group with extensive in-formation.

The overall focus of this project was to assist Texas inmoving toward an educational system that is account-able for the results of public education for all students.Thus, there are two avenues the group followed. First,it examined the critical issues for increasing the involve-ment of smdents with disabilities in statewide assess-ments. Second, it looked at the issues related to ac-countability for the performance of those students, in-cluding those who catmot take the existing statewideassessment, recognizing that these students will needother assessment options.

*tett* Are USW aextetv

(

THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

There are many reasons that Texas, like otherstates, is examining the issues surrounding thestatewide assessment of students with disabili-

ties. Over the past several years there have been ex-tensive efforts to reform education at all levels, withincreased emphasis on accountability for results. Statesare setting standards for pupil performance, and are ei-ther relying on existing state assessment systems ordeveloping new systems to track educational progress(Office of Ttchnology Assessment, 1992). Educationalprograms in the United States have implemented ac-countability systems to provide assurances to stakehold-

ers (both inside and outside schools) that expectationsfor higher levels of student achievement are being met.Accountability systems typically include goals, indi-cators of success toward meeting those goals, analysisof data, reporting procedures, and a set of consequencesor sanctions. The purpose of amassing indicators ofresults is to determine whether the educational systemis making expected progress and to guide improvementefforts (Clark, 1992).

Unfortunately, most standards-setting, accountability,and assessment systems are excluding large numbersof students with disabilities (McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner,& Spiegel, 1992; Ysseldyke, Thuriow, & Shriner, 1994).And, there have been differential rates of exclusionamong states, and among districts and school campuseswithin states, resulting in:

2

Incomplete information for policyformulation,Unfair and invalid comparisonsamong states and districts, andDecisions that do not take into ac-count the needs of students withdisabilities.

Concerns about these results have reached the pointthat assessment and accountability systems that includeall students are being demanded, both nationally andin states. A detailed description of what is happeningin national data collection programs in the United Statesand in the statewide assessments is provided in Ap-pendix B.

National Data Collection

The National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP) is our nation's "report card." Yet, up until thispast year, more than 60% of students with disabilitieswere excluded each time it was administered. The prob-lem of exclusion was first recognized in 1990 whenNAEP results began to be reported for individual states.Analyses revealed that exclusion rates varied amongstates, ranging from 33% to 87%, and that these varia-tions affected the ranking of states. Furthermore, itbecame evident that a national data collection programwas inadequate if it did not involve all students whowere in the educational system. Major changes inNAEP and other national data collection programs haveoccurred as a result of these findings. For example:

In 1992, sampling for the National

I ;2

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Education Longitudinal Study wasredesigned to overcome the exces-sive exclusion of students with dis-abilities from its samples.

In 1993, interviews for the Na-tional Adult Literacy Survey wererevised to allow for the participa-tion of more individuals with dis-abilities, and data on the perfor-mance of individuals with disabili-ties were reported.

In 1994, the National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES) be-gan exploring ways to increase theparticipation of students with dis-abilities in NAEP.

In 1995, NCES received approvalfrom the National AssessmentGoverning Board to take the ap-propriate steps to make increasedparticipation possible (by usingrevised guidelines) and to explorethe use of accommodations by stu-dents needing them.

Statewide Assessments

States likewise are actively addressing how to increasethe participation of students with disabilities in theiraccountability systems. in most states, accountabilitymeasurements are based solely on test scores. Some ofwhat is known about state tests is:

In the past, many states includedless than 25% of their studentswith disabilities in the statewideassessment.

Exclusion from statewide assess-ments has occurred when tests aredeveloped, when tests are admin-istered, and when results are sum-marized or reported.

While most states allow the use ofaCcommodations during assess-ments, the accommodations thatmay be used vary by state as well

as within states according to thedisability or the specific test.

Both the application of guidelinesfor making decisions about par-ticipation and the detennination ofappropriate accommodations varyamong school districts and schoolcampuses within states.

During the past five years, states have been more sen-sitive to tlie exclusion of students with disabilities fromstatewide assessments. Among the evidence of thismovement is:

3

Some states have now developednew assessments and accountabil-ity systems to dramatically in-crease the participation of studentswith disabilities.

Recent federal legislation hasmade it requisite that states in-clude all students in their account-ability and assessment systems.These include reform legislation(Goals 2000), elementary and sec-ondary education (ImprovingAmerica's Schools Act), and tran-sition to work (School to Work Op-portunities Act).

The new Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA) isexpected to require that studentswith disabilities be participants instate assessments.

Proposals for federal fundt havebeen solicited to address the tech-nical issues in the participation ofstudents with disabilities and theuse of accommodations.

The Council of Chief State SchoolOfficers (CCSSO) is forming aState Collaborative on Assessmentand Student Standards (SCASS)for states to work on issues relatedto assessment of students with dis-abilities.

I_ 0

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

All of these events reinforce the need to identify andaddress issues related to including students with dis-abilities in the Texas assessment and accountabilitysystem.

ASSESSMENT ANDACCOUNTABILITYPRACTICES IN TEXAS

/n 1994-95, there were more than 350,000 studentswith disabilities served by Texas public schools.The academic performance of approximately 47%

of them was evaluated in the most recent administra-tion of the statewide assessment, the Texas Assessmentof Academic Skills (TAAS). Currently, the majorsources of accountability for the performance of stu-dents with disabilities in Texas schools are the Indi-vidual Educational Plan (IEP) and the Results-BasedMonitoring (RBM) system. In practice, whether lEPsare appropriate, well-developed, or used for planningneeds review (see Appendix D). The RBM systemmonitors program compliance and examines continuedstudent growth, but does not yet connect results to thestatewide accountability system.

To avoid confusion, it is necessary to differentiate be-tween assessment systems and accountability systems.The assessment systemis a subset of the accountabilitysystem, and includes the TAAS and end-of-course ex-ams. In Texas, the accountability system includes datafrom several indicators to make judgments about howcampuses, districts, and the state as a whole are per-forming (see Appendix C for a listing of resource docu-ments extensively used as a foundation for the infor-mation contained in this section).

All students in Texas public schools are currently in-cluded, at least partially, in the accountability system(see Figure 1). Students with disabilities are includedwhen attendance rates and dropout rates are calculated,and therefore are factored into the accountability rat-ings. However, students with disabilities are not fac-tored into the data on performance in the assessmentportion of the accountability system. Even though over40% of students with disabilities do take the TAAS,their performance is not counted when accountabilityratings are calculated. Separate data are available todistricts on the performance of students with disabili-ties when they take the TAAS, but the data are not re-ported as part of the accountability rating system.

The Texas Education Code in Senate Bill 1 (Section39.027) requires that not later than December 1, 1996,the commissioner shall develop and propose to the leg-islature an assessment system for evaluating theprogress of students exempted from the state assess-ment. Not later than the 1998-1999 school year, theperformance of students who participate in that systemmust be included in the academic excellence indicatorsystem, the campus report card, and the performancereport. Meeting this mandate will require a review ofthe current system. The information in this section pro-vides a description of some of the history of the Texasassessment and accountability systems, an overview ofthe current systems, and the extent to which studentswith disabilities are involved.

History of State Assessment andAccountability

Students with disabilities have always been includedto some extent in the Texas state testing process andparticipation rates have always been reported. As Texasmoved from testing with the TABS (Texas Assessmentof Basic Skills) to the TEAMS (Texas Educational As-sessment of Minimum Skills) tests, students with dis-abilities participated with limited allowable modifica-tions. The introduction five years ago of the TAAStests moved assessment of basic skills to higher aca-demic levels, including higher order thinking and prob-lem solving skills, with tests beginning in the thirdgrade.

Field testing of the TAAS has not excluded studentswith disabilities and districts have been allowed to pm-vide certain modifications, although no Braille versionwas provided in the initial field test. Since then, stu-dents taking Braille versions of TAAS tests take theembedded field test items included each time TAAS isadministered.

4

In the initial TAAS testing years, students with disabili-ties were either exempt from the test administration, ortheir scores were reported in the district's results forspecial education students. These nores were also in-cluded in the district's report of rest its for all students.

participation, For the 1992-93 test administration, thefirst non-standard administration (oral) was allowed.In 1993-94, exempted students at all tested grades ex-cept exit level could be administered the TAAS tests

14

CU

RR

EN

T IN

VO

LVE

ME

NT

IN S

TA

TE

SY

ST

EM

S

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

AC

CO

UN

TA

BIL

ITY

RE

LAT

IVE

TO

SP

EC

IAL

ED

UC

AT

ION

ST

UD

EN

TS

IN T

EX

AS

IND

IVID

UA

LIN

ST

ITU

TIO

NA

L

PA

RT

ICIP

AT

ION

Bas

ed o

n an

nual

AR

D c

omm

ittee

deci

sion

For

dip

lom

a:m

ust g

et s

tate

and

/or

loca

l cre

dits

mus

t pas

s ex

it le

vel

* Y

es

asse

ssm

ent,

base

don

AR

Dco

mm

ittee

dec

isio

n

Allo

wab

le m

odifi

catio

nsas

rec

omm

ende

d by

the

AC

CO

MM

OD

AT

ION

AR

D c

omm

ittee

and

as

refle

cted

in th

e st

uden

t'sIE

P

Dis

aggr

egat

ed fr

om

RE

PO

RT

ING

non-

spec

ial e

duca

tion

stud

ents

* Y

es*

Yes

Ass

essm

ent r

esul

tsIM

PLE

ME

NT

AT

ION

not a

ggre

gate

d*

Yes

* Y

es

Spa

:lel E

duca

tion

data

Incl

uded

for

drop

out r

ate,

atte

ndan

ce r

ate,

col

lege

adm

issi

on r

esul

ts (

SA

T/A

CT

); n

ot In

clud

ed fo

ras

sose

men

t res

ults

or a

ny c

alcu

latio

ns r

elat

ed to

acc

ount

abili

ty r

atIn

gs w

hich

use

ass

essm

ent r

esul

ts

incl

udin

g St

uden

t* w

ith D

!abM

4.k,

&at

m/4

* A

NN

erne

nt a

nd A

ccou

ntab

illy

Spiti

ng: A

blu

cly

of th

e N

oun

1_6

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

for local evaluative purposes. Results for all exemptspecial education students were not aggregated Aththe results for non-exempt special education students.The detennination of accountability ratings for districtsand campuses did not include results for exempt or non-exempt special education students. Students assessedunder these circumstances were able to receive moreextensive modifications, if needed, since they were notrequired to be tested under standardized conditions.

During the past three years' administrations of theTAAS, an average of 4% of all students eligible to takethe exit test were exempted by the Admission, Reviewand Dismissal (ARD) committee. For the 1993-94 test-ing, over 50% of the total special education populationin Texas was exempt from all levels tested, with 47%par6cipating in the TAAS. There were no special ex-emptions for the new end-of-course exams (algebra andbiology) unless significant content modifications weremade for students in these courses. However, the testscould be .administered for local purposes to studentswhose lEPs specified content modifications (see "Ques-tions and Answers on Senate Bill 1," TEA, 1995).

Accommodations, Allowable accommodations for theTAAS have been compared favorably with those ofother states (see Exhibit 2). The current Texas Ad-ministrative Code establishes that specific modifica-tions for TAAS be outlined in the test administrationmaterials (see Appendix E). The nonstandard oraladministration allowance continues to be a part of thetesting process. In addition, there is a process for re-questing additional accommodations, and these are con-sidered by the Texas Education Agency on a case-by-case basis.

Reporting, Due to expressed concems about the mis-use of aggregated test data to compare districts, changeswere made in methods of reporting testing results. Ini-tially, media reports included the data of all studentstested, with inaccurate comparisons being made be-tween school districts. That is, not all districts used thesame process for including students with disabilities inthe test administration, and comparisons were not be-ing made on the same sets of data.

Beginning with the 1992-93 reporting, results were nolonger reported by disability (although separate datahad been reported through 1991-92). Beginning withthe 1993-94 reporting, the "all students" report waseliminated and only the disaggregated TAAS data ofnon-special education students were used for compari-

sons between school districts.

All special education students' TAAS data were in-cluded in a separate report, even if they were placed inall regular education classes and were not exemptedfrom testing by ARD committees. In addition, onlylimited data have been collected or reported for the typesor frequency of modifications used in the TAAS ad-ministration. Currently, data are collected regardingthe use of oral administration for math and on tests ad-ministered in Braille or large print (TEA, 1995).

Implementation, The stakes in Texas can be quite high.Most notable, the following are included in state stat-ute:

6

Accountability ratings aregiven on an annual basis toeach district and campusbased on TAAS results of non-special education students,and dropout and attendancerates of all students (includingspecial education students).

Performance data included inTexas' Academic ExcellenceIndicator System (AEIS) maybe used to evaluate respon-sible educators in the publiceducation system, from thecommissioner of education todistrict superintendents tocampus principals to class-room teachers.

Consequences for lower ordecreased ratings range frompeer review visits up to andincluding district oversight bymonitors and/or masters.

Financial incentives are alsopossible for those districts/campuses receiving exem-plary ratings.

Accountability ratings or labels carried by campusesor districts may impact the relationship between schoolsand their communities.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Sygems: A Study of the Issues

In an effort to ensure that every campus receives anaccountability rating, even though students may not betested in those grade levels (i.e., Pre-K to 2), those cam-puses receive the same ratings as feeder schools withwhich they are paired. Alternative campuses are givenaccountability ratings on either the standard criteria ormay choose the option of being evaluated under differ-ent performance standards (Accountability Manual,1995), and their data are included in the district reports.

Students with disabilities are currently able to receivea diploma upon completion of their IEP. However, the74th legislature did consider requinng all students withdisabilities to pass the TAAS test to receive a diploma.It could be harmful to students with disabilities if thiswere to happen.

State Assessment System

The statewide assessmentsystem in place in Texas wasdesigned to evaluate the performance of students inpublic schools. The Texas Assessment of AcademicSkills (TAAS) is a criterion-referenced assessment,based on the essential elements of the curriculum.

Description of Assessment System

TAAS specifications were developed to correlate es-sential elements to instructional targets. The state testsare designed to assess student competencies in:

reading, writing, math, science, and socialstudies (at state determined grade levels 3-8)secondary exit level tests in math, Englishlanguage arts and writingend-of-course exams in Algebra I and BiologyI (with additional tests to be developed inEnglish and U.S. History).

To receive a high school diploma, students must meetpassing standards on the exit level tests in English lan-guage arts, writing, and math or on specified end-of-course exams once they are in place (see "Questions&Answers on Senate Bill 1," TEA, 1995).

Current State Assessment Practices Relatedto Students with Disabilities

By decision of the Admission, Review and Dismissal(ARD) committee, students with disabilities may :

a) take the standard TAAS,b) take the TAAS with allowable modifications,

orc) be exempted from the TAAS.

No alternative system is yet in place for students withdisabilities. The only alternativemeasures used in Texasare those for students of limited English proficiency(LEP). State Boani of Education rules for student as-sessment were revised in January, 1994 to address thetesting of LEP students. Although these students maybe exempted from taking the English TAAS, academicprogress must be assessed with alternative measures.In essence, each of these students must be tested withgrade appropriate English TAAS, grade appropriateSpanish TAAS (as available), or alternative assess-ments. The alternative measures must be valid and re-liable. Alternative assessment reports must show stu-dent improvements in reading, writing and mathemat-ics. Criteria must be reported which are used to deter-mine "appropriate improvement" to insure that studentsare making sufficient progress to pass the EnglishTAAS. A list of approved tests whichmay be used foralternative assessments is provided by the TEA.

Results for students with disabilities who take theTAAS, with or without modifications, are cunentlycompiled as a separate report from the rest of the stu-dent population. Students with disabilities are not in-cluded at this time in the requirement of passing theexit level TAAS as a condition of receipt of their diplo-mas. The exception to this occurs when the ARD com-mittee recommends that the studentcomplete the mini-mum academic credit requirements applicable to non-special education students, including passing the exitlevel assessment The TAAS results for students withdisabilities are not included in the accountability sys-tem for the campus and district. Senate Bill 1 (1995)requires the development of an assessment system forevaluating the progress of students exempted from state-required assessments ( Section 39.027c.).

7

Other Assessment Efforts

A series of Special Education Effectiveness Studieshave been undertaken to study studentperformancein life skill areas of education, employment, indepen-dent living, recreational, social and leisure skills (seeState Plan for Special Education inTexas, 1995).These studies include:

L.)

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Sy lents: A Study of the Issues

A retrospective study L.: 250 students whohave exited the public schools prior to therequirement of an Individual Transition Plan(ITP): The study tracks productivity, integra-

tion into the community, and independence.

A longitudinal study of 1000 students for four

years following school exit: The studytracks outcomes regarding the appropriatenessof the essential elements and students' success-ful integration into the community.

A study of 300 special education students intheir final school year: The study focuses onlow incidence populations (e.g. severe disabili-ties, etc.) and the effects of the transitionprocess, i.e. placement at graduation, serviceneeds, and the IEP-ITP relationship.

A case study approach in 5-6 Texas communi-

ties of the family-community experience:The study focuses on satisfaction and qualityof services from public education, stateagendies, and private providers, i.e. degree ofpreparation, interpersonal relationships, accessto services, employment, and communityacceptance.

State Accountability System

An integrated accountability system is in place which

is used to evaluate the performance of the 1050 publicschool districts and more than 6000 campuses in Texas.

This system incorporates required district and campusdata which are used to generate:

district accreditation status,campus ratings,district and campus recognition for high perfor-mance and perfonnance improvement, andcampus, district, and state-level reports.

Description of AccountabilitySystem Reporting

Accountability for Thxas public school system perfor-

mance is examined through the use of three perfor-8

mance indicator reports. These include the AcademicExcellence Indicator System (AEIS), the School Re-

port Card, and the Performance Report. District ac-creditation status and campus ratings depend on meet-ing state assessment, dropout rate, and attendance rate

standards.

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)

The Academic Excellence Tndicator System (AEIS)includes profile information regarding school and dis-

trict staff, students and finances. Campus and districtperformance on indicators used as the basis for account-ability ratings, rewards, and reports are the major com-

ponent of the AEIS (see Figure 2).

As a performance indicator report, AEIS includes thefollowing campus and district data:

Indicators in place through the 1994-95 school year(Accountability Manual, February 1995)1. Passing rates on required assessments

(Subchapter B [TEC])2. Enrollment and counts of students tested3. Attendance rate4. Dropout rate5. College admissions results (SAT/ACT)6. Advanced course completion7. Growth on the Texas Learning Index (TLI)8. TAAS/TASP equivalency

Itevised indicators (Senate Bill 1, Section 39.051)

1. Results of assessment instruments required(Subchapter B [TEC, Senate Bill 1])

2. Dropout rate3. Student attendance rate4. The percentage of graduating students who pass

secondary exit-level assessments (TAAS/TASPequivalency)

5. Percentage of graduating students who complete therecommended high school program (SBOE)

6 College admissions results (SAT/ACT)7. Percentage of students taking end-of-course exams8. Percentage of students exempted from the

assessment program

Minimal changes to the indicators resulted from Sen-ate Bill I. Most notably, the percentage ofstudents ex-empted from the assessment program was added andthe percentage of students taking the end-of-course

AC

CO

UN

TA

BIL

ITY

SY

ST

EM

CU

RR

EN

T S

YS

TE

M (

TH

RO

UG

H 9

4-95

)

BA

SE

IND

ICA

TO

RS

(det

erm

ine

acco

unta

bilit

y ra

tings

)

Ass

essm

ent r

esul

ts

Dro

pout

rat

e

Atte

ndan

ce r

ate

AD

DIT

ION

AL

IND

ICA

TO

RS

(ack

now

ledg

e hi

gh p

erfo

rman

ce)

Col

lege

adm

issi

on r

esul

ts (

SA

T/A

CT

)

0

SY

ST

EM

UN

DE

R S

EN

AT

E B

ILL

1 (S

EC

TIO

N 3

9. 0

72)

AE

IS -

(1-

6)

Ass

essm

ent r

esul

ts

Dro

pout

rat

e

Atte

ndan

ce r

ate

Per

cent

age

wis

ing

TA

AS

RA

SP

equ

ival

ency

Com

plet

ion

reco

mm

ende

d hi

gh s

choo

l pro

gram

Col

lege

adm

issi

on r

esul

ts (

SA

T/A

CT

)

PO

SS

IBLE

AD

DIT

ION

AL

CO

NS

IDE

RA

TIO

NS

Com

plia

nce

with

sta

tuto

ry r

equi

rem

ents

and

SB

OE

rul

e

-rep

ortin

g P

ER

M d

ata

-hig

h sc

hool

gra

duat

ion

requ

irem

ents

-non

-exe

mpt

ed a

ctiv

ities

Effe

ctiv

enes

s of

dis

tric

t spe

cial

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

mba

sed

on m

ost r

ecen

t com

plia

nce

revi

ew

21

incl

udin

g St

uden

ts W

et D

isab

ilitie

s in

Sta

tew

ide

Ass

essm

ent a

nd A

ccou

ntab

ility

Sys

tem

s: A

Sbd

yth

e Is

sues

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accowuability Systems: A Study of the Issues

exams was stipulated along with those completing the lyzed ("Questions and Answers on Senate Bill 1 ," TEA,recommended high school program. 1995).

School Report Card

The Texas Education Agency is required by statute toproduce a School Report Card for every campus in thestate. Each campus is required to provide a copy to theparent or guardian of every student. Under the require-ments of TEC [Senate Bill 1] (Section 39.052), theSchool Report Card is to include:

I. the AE1S (indicators 1 through 8),2. student/teacher ratios, and3. administrative and instructional costs per student.

Performance Report

An additional indicator of public school system ac-countability is an annual perfonnance report describ-ing the educational performance ratings (accreditationstatus) of the district and each campus in the district.The report includes campus performance objectives andprogress toward those objectives. The report is to alsoinclude a comparison of the performance of each dis-trict and each campus to previous performance, to state-established standards, and to "comparable improve-ment" (measured against a "profile developed from astate total student performance data base which exhib-its substantial equivalence to the characteristics of stu-dents served by the campus or district" [Accountabil-ity Manual, February, 1995]).

Accreditation Status

AEIS Indicators 1 through 6 are those to be used todetermine accreditation ratings for campuses and dis-tricts. In practice, these are subdivided into base indi-cators and additional indicators (see Figure 2). Baseindicators are those required to meet minimum accredi-tation standards. Additional indicators are used for ad-ditional acknowledgment and to measure performancebeyond the minimum. Districts and campuses may berated as exemplary, recognized, accreditedlacceptable,or accredited warnedlunacceptable. Data do not yetexist for all indicators, and standards have yet to bedetermined once actual performance results are ana-

Accountability Systems Reportingas Related fl

Students with Disabilities

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS)

In the profile section, data for students with disabilitiescurrently appear as separate reports from non-specialeducation students for number of graduates and reten-tion rates (due to wide variation in local retention prac-tices).

Data for students with disabilities have been aggregatedin the data and campus reports for enrollment, atten-dance, dropout, college admissions tests and advancedcourse completion. Disaggregated assessment data arereported in a separate document. Growth on the TexasLearning Index (TLI) is based on student progressacross grades in reading and math (TAAS scores) andhas not been planned to include data for students withdisabilities (see Figure 3).

School Report Card Related toStudents with Disabilities

Data included for students with disabilities consists ofthose AEIS indicators described previously, student/teacher ratios, and cost data. With the new AEIS indi-cator of number of students exempted, this new infor-mation should now appear and be reported to parentsas a new element on the School Report Card (see Fig-ure 3).

10

Performance Report Relatedto Students with Disabilities

Information on students with disabilities is to be in-cluded in the performance report to the extent that it isalready included in the reports which impact the dis-trict and campus accreditation ratings. That is, no as-sessment results are included. Data are included forenrollment, attendance, dropout rate, college admissionsdata, and advanced course completion (see Figure 3).

Rep

ortin

g R

equi

rem

ents

- S

e

CU

RR

EN

T R

EP

OR

TIN

G O

F D

AT

A F

OR

ST

UD

EN

TS

WIT

H D

ISA

BIL

ITIE

SA

EIS

Indi

cato

rs:

Enr

ollm

ent

Atte

ndan

ce r

ate

Dro

pout

rat

e

Col

lege

adm

issi

ons

resu

lts

Adv

ance

d co

urse

com

plet

ion

Num

ber

of g

radu

ates

;A

sses

smen

t res

ults

0.

Agg

'ega

te a

sses

smen

t res

ults

g

AE

IS in

dica

tors

Atte

ndan

ce r

ate

Dro

pout

rat

eC

olle

ge a

dmis

sion

s re

sults

Stu

dent

s/te

ache

r ra

tios

Cos

t dat

a

Per

cent

enr

ollm

ent

Agg

rega

te a

sses

smen

t res

ults

23

Acc

redi

tatio

nD

ropo

ut r

ate

Atte

ndan

ce r

ate

Pro

gres

s to

war

d ca

mpu

spe

rfor

man

ce o

bjec

tives

Agg

rega

te a

sses

smen

t res

ults

Dis

tric

t/cam

pus

com

paris

ons

incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Cis

abili

ties

in W

W1*

* A

susa

men

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

ysto

ms:

A S

tudy

of O

w Is

sues

BE

ST C

OPY

MA

MM

AS

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Current Educational Reforms Related toAssessment and Accountability

Two additional efforts am underway in Texas whicham correlated to the assessment and accountability sys-tems. One of these is the re-defining of the core areasfor curriculum, the Essential Knowledge and SkillsClarification process. The statewide assessment sys-tem is based on these content standards. The secondeffort is a new monitoring system which reviews stu-dent performance and program operations for all spe-cial programs in Texas' school districts.

Essential Elements/Essential Knowledgeand Skills Clarification Process

The Essential Elements of instruction for Texas publicschools were developed as a result of a legislative di-rective, were adopted in 1984, and were first imple-mented in the 1985-86 school year. Onrently, a clari-fication process is underway which represents the sec-ond five-year review. This review will yield the Essen-tial Knowledge and Skills for all subjects taught in kin-&Tanen through grade 12. These core areas of knowl-edge and skills must be included in the foundation cur-riculum and will be used for guidance in the enrich-ment curriculum for Texas public schools.

Included in the charge to the clarification teams is thatthe Essential Knowledge and Skills must be appropri-ate for special populations. The product will specifywhat all students should know and be able to do, aswell as specify levels of performance. The product willserve as the foundation for the statewide assessmentsystem. The clarification process is underway for allcontent areas and field review is scheduled for comple-tion in the spring of 1996.

Results-Based Monitoring (RBM)

Results-Based Monitoring is a monitoring system forassessing student performance and compliance in spe-cial programs. Local staff assess how well studentsare performing and whether the special program is op-erating in accordance with program requirements. Thislocal assessment helps identify program strengths, pri-orities for improvement, and any needed corrective ac-tions.

The Results-Based Monitoring System began in 1992-93 as a pilot with 16 districts. The pilot continued in1993-94 with an additional 50 pilot sites. For both pi-lot years, each district was monitored for all programscovered by the RBM system. During the 1994-96benchmark year, approximately 140 new districts willcollect data on one or more special programs.

Indicators for the AEIS, disaggregated by program, in-clude:

1. the percentage of students who pass TAAS2. the attendance rate3. the dropout rate

12

Perfonnance indicators center around continued growthof students over previous performance results. Specifi-cally, the following are evaluated:

a. continued growth of students dismissed from spe-cial education into general education

b. continued growth of students served in integratededucational settings

c. continued growth in areas related to disabilitiesd. continued growth toward areas identified in the

Individualized Transition Planse. employment, postsecondary education or

training involvement for previous yeargraduates

f. retention rate

Continued growth is measured by both formal and in-formal measures. Assessment may include the TAAS,alternative assessments, parent report, teacher report,or other measures. These student pe:fonnance resultsare utilized locally and are intended to guide planningfor improvement. This may include a consultative visitfrom the TEA. However, the results are not used totrigger compliance exceptions, data verification visitsfrom the Texas Education Agency, or accountabilityratings. They are merely ways in which data is col-lected for analysis and are not yet tied to public account-ability for what is found.

CRITICAL ISSUES

To develop the issues related to including studentswith disabilities in the state's assessment and ac-countability systems, the focus group proceeded

with two basic considerations. First, some issues werethought to correspond to oversight needs at the state

20

Including Students with Disabilitie.s in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

level for monitoring and policy development. Secondly,however, the emphasis of Senate Bill 1 (as well as site-based decision-making) reinforced the shift of respon-sibility to the local level for educational practices andresults. Therefore, local implementation practices wereidentified as the greatest challenge. In the creation ofsolutions to the issues identified in this document, itwill be important to determine which areas are appro-priate for the state to address and which ones shouldbe regulated locally.

The many issues in the Texas statewide assessment ofstudents with disabilities are grouped into the four broadareas identified by the Texas Education Agency: par-ticipation, accommodation, reporting, and implemen-tation. Issues outside of the four areas, or those notconsidered to be a part of the charge to the focus group,are listed as related issues in Appendix D.

Participation issues

Ten participation issues were identified by the focusgroup. Two of the issues are relevant to participationin accountability systems, while the other eight are spe-cific to participation in state assessments. All are listedhere first, then each is discussed for clarification.

Accountability

I. A combination of high stakesaccountability and exclusion of testscores for students with disabilitiesleads to many unintended conse-quences.

2. There is disagreement about responsi-bility for educational results forstudents with disabilities.

Assessment

1. There is disagreement about whichstudents with disabilities shouldparticipue in state assessments.

2. Large numbers of students withdisabilities are exempted by ARDcommittees from state assessments.

3. Concerns exist about the role andfunction of the ARD committeerelated to decisions about participa-tion in state assessments.

4. Students with disabilities in uniquesettings (e.g. separate schools,institutions) are routinely excludedfrom state assessments.

5. Exemption rules axe applied differ-ently across settings, and adherence toexemption guidelines is not moni-tored.

6. The lack of adequate accommodationsor altemative assessment systemskeeps many students with disabilitiesfrom participation in state assess-ments.

7. There are questions about whetherdecisions about participation shoulddiffer as a function of the severity ofdisability or the category of disability.

8. The reliability, validity, and appropci-ateness of many assessments szequestionable for students withdisabilities.

Participation in Accountability SYstems:Issue 1. A combination of high stakes accountabilityand exclusion of test scores for students with disabili-ties leads to many unintended consequences.

Current research indicates that there are at least fiveunintended consequences of high stakes testing systems:

Increased retention of students atgrade level,Increased referral of students tospecial education,Increased occurrences of drop-ping out of school,Placement of students in separateclassrooms or buildings, andMisleading comparisons of testperformance among districts andhome campuses.

All of these unintended consequences have either beendocumented or idonnally reported to be occurring inTexas. For example, increased referrals to special edu-cation have been noted after the first administration ofthe exit exam in 10th grade and referrals to special edu-cation continue into grade 12 (see TEA letter, 1992,Appendix D).

The exclusion isiue in Texas is directly related to is-sues of representation. When decisions are made aboutschools, districts, or classrooms based on performancedata, and data concerning students with disabilities areexcluded, the decisions do not reflect consideration ofthe needs of students with disabilities. In some cases,students with disabilities are "out of sight," and there-

13

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

fore "out of mind," in the planning process for helpingschools or districts improve student perfonnance.

ParticOation in Accountability Systems:Issue 2. There is disagreement about responsibilityfor educational results for students with disabilities.

Research in other parts of the country has documentedthat there does not always exist a belief in shared re-sponsibility by all adults in the school for the educa-tion of students with disabilities (Ysseldyke,Christenson, & Thurlow, 1993). While this researchhas not been conducted in Texas, focus group mem-bers and their constituents viewed the application ofthis finding to Texas as appropriate. Even though astudent may spend most of his or her day in the generaleducation classroom, the student who receives specialeducation services may still be viewed as the responsi-bility of the special education teacher. This view issupported when the TAAS scores of the special educa-tion student do not count in performance ratings, evenif the student takes the test. If the student has mastered

content areas that are covered in the regular class-room and evaluated by TAAS, his or her performancewill still not be included in the campus report card.

This disagreement about responsibility for results isincreased when students with disabilities receive all orpart of their instruction in separate settings (other thanhome campus) or outside their district of residence.Who will be accountable, who will assume responsi-bility (often translated into rewards or sanctions) forthe results of education for students with disabilities,including those who receive all or part of their instruc-tion in separate classes, settings, or districts?

Participation in Assessments:Issue 1. There is disagreement about which studentswith disabilities should participate in state assess-ments.

Although there is general consensus that all studentsshould be a part of the accountability system, there ap-pears to be disagreement about the meaning of "all"when used in reference to the TA AS. Few educatorsor patents in Thxas would propose that "all means all,"that it means all students should participate in theTAAS. Some people believe that there are some stu-dents who should be exempted from TAAS because it

does not appropriately measure some student's abilitylevel. Some would exempt only those students withsevere cognitive impairments. Others would exemptany studentWho might have a significant learning mph-lem. And yet others would exempt only students withbehavior disabilities because their potentially disrup-tive behavior might depress the perfonnance of otherstudents taking TAAS. Finally, many people believethat all students should participate in state assessments,but to do so will require the addition of an alternativeassessment for some students.

Participation in Assessments:Issue 2. Large numbers of students with disabilitiesare exempted by ARD committees from state assess-ments.

In Texas, the ARD committee has responsibility formaking decisions about participation in TAAS. Largenumbers (approximately 53%) of students with disabili-ties are either exempted from the TAAS, as recom-mended by the ARD committee (Briand, 1995; NCEO,1995), or are not even considered as part of the pool ofstudents who should take TAAS. Among the lattergroup are students who are in residential settings. Stu-dents in alternative learning environments may or maynot take TAAS depending on the approach chosen bythe school.

In reports of current practices, decisions regarding theexemption of a student from TAAS show inconsistentpatterns. Decisions may range from few exemptionsto most students with disabilities being exempted fromTAAS to only students with certain categories of dis-abilities being considered as eligible to take TAAS,rather than it being an individual decision as intended.

Participation in Assessments:Issue 3. Concerns exist about the role and function

of the ARD committee related to decisions about par-ticipation in state assessments.

Although the TEA has issued guidelines for participa-tion of students with disabilities in the TAAS, there arecontinuing concerns about how decisions are beingmade as to whether students with disabilities partici-pate. In Texas, the ARD committee is given that re-sponsibility. ARD committees are charged with mak-ing the decisions to support individualized educationof students with disabilities. However, training in ap-

14

2

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of theIssues

pmpriate practices for making decisions about the par-ticipation of students with disabilities in assessmentsis felt to be needed. There is some concern that the ARDcommittee members need more guidelines for how toimplement the criteria for deciding who should partici-pate, that they may act to exempt when in doubt, orthat they may be overly benevolent in exempting stu-dents from tests because of a lack of assessment op-.tions.

Participation in Assessments:Issue 4. Students with disabilities in unique settings(e.g., separate schools, institutions) are routinely ex-cluded from state assessments.

Students who attend schools in unique settings such asinstitutions, other residential placements (e.g., schoolfor the deaf), and alternative campuses may not be in-cluded in TAAS. When results are drawn for analysisand review by grade level or only from traditionalschools, many students are not on the initial list fromwhich names are drawn. Even when all students aretested, these students typically are left out.

Participation in Assessments:Issue S. Exemption rules are applied dffferentlyacrosssettings, and adherence to exemption guidelines is notmonitored.

The guidelines for decision-making about the partici-pation of students with disabilities in TAAS may beapplied differently in different home campuses or dis-tricts, and this results in variation in the proportionsand kinds of students who are exempted from TAAS.When this happens, comparisons among home cam-puses and districts are invalidated. Currently the ac-countability system in place does not determine whatstrategies ARD committees use to determine whether astudent is exempted from taking the TAAS.

However, a number of system safeguards are used toensure that student performance is properly measured.The system safeguards include the analysis of TAAS/Public Education Information Management System(PEIMS) consistency, few students tested, and auditsof non-tested students, including audits for "excessive"ARD exemptions. (PEIMS is a system used to trackstudent enrollment and participation in special pro-grams.) The audit process compares the number ofspe-

cial education students exempted from the TAAS ad-ministration by the local ARD committee to the num-ber of students receiving special education services.Further inquiries are conducted only if the number ex-empted from any of the TAAS tests administered isgreater than the number of students served in specialeducation programs.

Participation in Assessments:Issue 6. The lack of adequate accommodations or al-ternative assessment systems keeps many students withdisabilities from participation in state assessments.

All of the good intentions about participation in statetests go awry if, for reasons of disability, students areunable to participate in testing. Some students simplycannot participate in testing unless accommodations alemade or an alternative assessment system (e.g., portfo-lio systems) is available. In Texas, there currently aremany modifications allowed during the administrationof TAAS. However, there is no alternative system formeasuring the perk :mance of students who cannot takeTAAS, even with modifications.

Participation in Assessments:Issue 7. There are questions about whether decisionsabout participation should dfffer as a function of theseverity of disability or the category of disability.

The project focus group felt that different assumptionsunderlie decisions made about who is exempted fromTAAS, and there are discrepancies in how the decisionsare made. Some ARD committee members may be-lieve that all students, including all students with dis-abilities, should participate in TAAS, with or withoutaccommodations. Other members may believe thatexemptions should be made for students with severeimpairments or with specific kinds of disabilities. Somedesire exemptions for all students of a specific category(e.g., emotionally disturbed, learning disabled). Thereis, of course, little agreement about which categoriesshould be excluded. Finally, there is the belief that allstudents should participate in the Texas accountabilitysystem, and to do so, some, because of their category ortieverity of disability, will need to take alternative as-sessments instead of TAAS.

15C.$

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Participation in Assessments:Issue 8. The reliability, validity, and appropriatenessof many assessments are questionable for studentswith disabilities.

Technical concerns that arise when considering large-scale assessments include reliability, validity, and ap-propriateness. Validity is the major concern doesthe instrument really measure what it is intended to mea-sure? Although currently Texas includes students withdisabilities in its field test of the TAAS, including stu-dents with disabilities, by itself, does not establish thevalidity of a test for a relatively small population ofstudents. Sufficient numbers of students with disabili-ties need to be included to allow for analysis of theirdata separately. It is important to demonstrate that theitems function the same (are not biased) for studentswith disabilities as for students in the general popula-tion (by examining item characteristic curves or per-centage of students answering each test item correctly),and to look at the extent to which the structure of thetest is the same for students with disabilities as it is forthe students in the general populations (through factoranalysis). A related issue is whether the TAAS is anaccurate representation of the instructional program ofsome students (i.e. those receiving more nonacademicprograms).

There are also concerns about the appropriateness ofTAAS for students with disabilities who have not pre-viously been included in the field tests (since partici-pation is decided in the same way as during regularTAAS administrations). That is, participation may havebeen limited to types of abilities and/or disabilities dur-ing field testing. There is the potential of new studentstaking the test who demonstrate abilities/disabilities dif-ferent from those students included in the original fieldtest group. The need then arises to question whetherthe test is also appropriate for the types of students whowere not part of the field test.

Accommodation Issues

When students with disabilities participate in assess-ments, accommodations may be needed to enhance theirsuccess. Certain modifications are allowable for stu-dents taking the standard state assessments and the end-of-course examinations. The text from the TAAS Co-ordinator Manual (Spring, 1995) S included in Appen-dix D with the exact modificaons and circumstances

stated. TEA considers other modifications on a case-by-case basis. Decisions about the use of modifica-tions are made on an individual basis and take into con-sideration the needs of the student and whether the stu-dent receives that modification during classroom in-struction. Modifications that would invalidate the testare not allowable.

Seven accommodation issues were identified by thefocus group as relevant to current allowable accom-modations for TAAS adminimation in Texas. Theseissues are listed here first, then each is discussed forclarification.

1. There is unwillingness to provide al-lowable accommodations.

2. Some people believe some accommo-dations give students an advantage overother students.

3. There is disagreement about what "rea-sonable accommodations" means.

4. Multiple issues exist related to each ofthe specific accommodations (e.g., ex-tended time, reading aloud, Braille, useof calculators, word processors, scribes,tape recorders, etc., oral and/or signlanguage interpreting).

5. Controversy exists about whether theuse of accommodations changes whatis assessed.

6. There is disagreement about whetheraccommodations should be disability-specific.

7. There is concern about whether thesame kinds of accommodations used ininstruction should be used in assess-ments.

Issue 1. There is unwillingness to provideallowable accommodations.

In some districts and home campuses, accommodationsin testing are not widely permitted. While accommo-dations are allowed in Texas and included in writtenguidelines, individual school personnel sometimes ei-ther believe they should not be provided, or are un-willing to provide them. A concern is that if studentswith disabilities are unable to take TAAS under thestandardized (non-accommodated) procedures usedwith students who do not have disabilities, then theyshould not be taking TAAS. Certain accommodationsare seen as potentially changing what the test intendsto measure, thereby invalidating the results. Anothercomplication is that some people are willing to pro-vide accommodations for some conditions but not oth-

16

Including Students with Disabilities in Statmvide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

ers, or for some students because of the severity of their Issue 5. Controversy exists about whether the use ofdisability. accommodations changes what is assessed.

Issue 2. Some people believe that accommodationsgive students an advantage over other students.

Because not all students use accommodations whenthey take TAAS, some people believe that the accom-modations provide an unfair advantage to the studentsusing them. Other people argue that accommodationsprovide the students using them with equity of oppor-tunity to respond appropriately, that the accommoda-tions enable students to reflect their true abilities orskills rather than providing an advantage. In essence,it is believed that accommodations produce a level play-ing field.

Issue 3. There is disagreement about what "reason-able accommodations" means.

In most states there is a call for making 3reasonable"accommodations in assessment. But, what does "rea-sonable" mean? Is it reasonable to pay the costs of aseparate administration? In Texas, written guidelinesindicate that it is reasonable for a student to use a scribe,yet in Connecticut this accommodation is strictly for-bidden in written guidelines. Just as different writtenguidelines of different states judge "reasonable" dif-ferently, so do individuals within one state, and evenwithin a single ARD committee.

Issue 4. Multiple issues exist I elated to each of thespecific accommodations (e.g., separate setting, read-ing aloud, Braille, use of calculators, word proces-sors, scribes, tape recorders, oral andlor sign languageinterpreting).

It seems that each specific accommodation carries withit a set of practical and technical issues. Beyond thegeneral issues that have been listed above, there aremany issues related to specific types of accommoda-tions. Some of these are: (1) Is it appropriate to read areading test to a person with dyslexia or a related learn-ing disability? (2) Are motivational prompts during along assessment appropriate to provide for a studentwith an attention deficit or an emotional disability? Thelist of specific questions about accommodations couldbe quite lengthy.

The validity of an assessment is an index of the extentto which it measures what it is supposed to measure.To be technically adequate, an assessment must be valid.It is considered critical to have the assessment mea-sure what it says it measures. If an accommodationresults in the assessment of something other than whatthe assessment purports to measure, then the validityof the results is questionable. The question of validityhas been raised, for example, with respect to the Brailleversion of the TAAS offered in Texas. Braille is actu-ally a specialized tactual code form of the written lan-guage. Tactual versions of' print diagrams or picturesusually convey very different infonnation to the stu-dent. When the concept of the test item is based on apicture, the validity of the Braille version is question-able because it potentially provides different informa-tion to the Braille-reading student than the informationprovided to a sighted student by a printed picture.

Issue 6. There is disagreement about whether accom-modations should be disability specific.

In some states, accommodations that are allowed arebased on the disability that the student exhibits. Thereare many questions about whether this is an appippri-ate approach to take, particularly given the acknowl-edged difficulty of differentiating among certain dis-ability categories. In Texas, disability category is notincluded in written guidelines as a basis for makingmodification decisions. Yet there is anecdotal evidencethat these decisions sometimes are categorically based.

Issue 7. There is concern about whether the samekinds of accommodations used in instruction shouldbe used in assessments.

When instruction is provided to students with disabili-ties, teachers may provide accommodations that helpthe students to profit best from the instruction. Theyprovide these accommodations during all aspects of in-struction when presenting information, when hav-ing students practice new skills, and when evaluatinglearning. In the allowable accommodations for Texas,instructional modifications are to be considered for theTAAS. However, some argue that because not all ap-propriate accommodations are provided during instnic-tion, accommodations used during assessments should

1730

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

not be restricted to only those used in the classroom.Rather, selection of accommodations should be basedon any allowable option that would improve studentperfonnance, whether or not it is currently used dur-ing instruction.

Reporting Issues

Seven reporting issues related to practices in Texaswere identified by the focus group. Five are specificto accountability systems, while two are specific tostate assessments. All are listed here first, then each isdiscussed for clarification.

Accountability

1. There are concerns about studentswhose assessment results arereported, but not included in theaccountability system.

2. Some believe that the data forstudents with disabilities should bereported separately from the data forother students.

3. Categorical reporting of results bydisability is desired by some but notothers, and is seen as raising issuesof confidentiality.

4. There are concerns related toreporting of results of students whoare not attending their home campus.

5. There are questions about whetherresults, particularly reprdingstudents with disabilities, arecommunicated in a way that is clearand easily understood.

Assessment

1. There is disagreement about whetherdata obtained when students useaccommodations or alternativeassessments should be repottedseparately from data obtamed understandard assessment procedures.

2. There is a question about the kind(s)of scores (e.g., absolute scores orchange in performance over time)that dtould be reported for studentswith disabilities.

Reporting Accountability:Issue I. There are concerns about students whoseassessment results are reported, but not included inthe accountability system.

BEST COPY AVAIIABLE

When students with disabilities do take TAAS, theirperformances are reported back to school districts andhome campuses, but the TAAS scores are not includedin accountability reports. Rather, the only data on stu-dents with disabilities included in accountability deci-sions are data on dropout and attendance rates.

Reporting Accountability:Issue 2. Some believe that the data for students withdisabilities should be reported separately from the datafor other students.

Currently, data on students with disabilities who takeTAAS are reported separately from the data for otherstudents. One justification for this is that the data thendo not "contaminate" the data of general educationstu-dents. In addition, it is recogrized that the TAAS isnot an appropriate measure for some students who, be-cause of their significant cognitive disabilities, havedifferent, more nonacademic curricula. Another justi-fication for this is that data on students with disabili-ties are then available to inform policy and program-ming decisions. Because of the way that performancedata on students with disabilities are reported (sepa-rately to the campus or district), there is no require-ment that these data be looked at for making decisions,nor that they be publicly reported.

Reporting Accountability:Issue 3. Categorical reporting of results by disabilityis desired by some but not others, and is seen as rais-ing issues of confidentiality.

In general, opinions on this issue reflect on the useful-ness of categorical special education. One criticism ofproviding data separately for different categories of dis-ability is that it makes the erroneous implication thatthere are neat distinctions between different categories.One justification for separate reporting is that it pro-vides data that can be used to inform policy and pro-gramming decisions. Those who argue against categori-cal reporting, particularly at the district or campus level,indicate concern that these reports for categories ofsmall numbers of students (e.g., those with visual im-pairments) will violate confidentiality. There could beso few students that they will be readily identifiable.These data by category are not currently reported sepa-rately in Texas. As reporting requirements change, cat-

18

31

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

egérical data should only be considered at a regional rable, then one could nue that there is no need to sepa-or state level to be used solely for planning or research rate the results for the two groups.purposes.

Reporting Accountability:Issue 4. There are concerns related to reporting ofresults of students who are not attending their homecampus.

Many students with disabilities attend schools otherthan their home school or district of residence. Whenthis is the case, there is dispute about whether test re-sults should be reported by the home school or theschool the student attends. The debate is intensifiedwhen there are differences in curriculum across dis-tricts and the disuict of residence has little or no say inthe curriculum provided by the district of attendance.This issue applies as well to students who are not ontheir home campuses, but are served on another cam-pus within their districts.

Reporting Accountability:Issue 5. There are questions about whether results,particularly regarding students with disabilities, arecommunicated in a way that is clear and easily un-derstood.

Reports of testing results often are misinterpreted. Amajor issue in reporting is making certain that reportsinclude clear information about the characteristics ofthe students who participated in the assessment. Thisbecomes more complicated when students with disabili-ties are included. Current reports do include informa-tion about the numbers of students exempted fromTAAS. Reports are available on how many studentswith disabilities took TAAS, but these are not part ofthe reports included in the accountability ratings.

Reporting Assessment:Issue 1. There is disagreement about whether dataobtained when students use accommodations or al-ternative assessments should be separated from dataobtained under standard assessment procedures.

This issue is related to the accommodations issue onwhether data obtained under accommodated assess-ments are measures of the same things as data obtainedunder standard test conditions. If the data are compa-

Reporting Assessment:Issue 2. There is a question about the kind(s) of scores(e.g., absolute scores or change in pesformance overtime) that should be reported for students with dis-abilities.

TAAS reports for non-special education student itsultstypically have focused on both absolute scores of per-formance and changes in performance over time. Thelatter reports contribute to the determination of whethera school can receive an award through the Texas Suc-cessful Schools Award System. It is argued that in-creased participation of students with disabilities in theTAAS will disrupt the current examination of perfor-mance over time. Thus, it will be important to trackboth absolute scores and changes in performance overtime for students with disabilities, and to factor thesescores into consideration when looking at the progressin performance of schools over time.

Implementation Issues

Five implementation issues for the Texas assesSmentand accountability systems were identified by thefocus group. All are listed here first, then each isdiscussed for clarification.

19

1. People do not want to have studentswith disabilities in assessment andaccountability systems when thosesystems are used for high stakespurposes.

2. Attitude is a barrier to implementingassessment and accountabilitysystems that include students withdisabilities.

3. There are cuncems about theresources needed to expand andimplement the assessment andaccountability systems.

4. There is concern about the alignmentbetween state and federal statutes andexpanded assessment and account-ability systems.

5. There is concern that implementingan expanded statewide assessmentand accountability system coied doharm to students with disabilities.

4'1

si COPY AVAILABLE

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Issue 1. People do not want to have students with dis-abilities in assessment and accountability systemswhen those systems are used for high stakes purposes.

In some states, including Texas, the outcomes of state-wide testing are used to develop a campus report card.The report canl serves accountability purposes. Thefocus group reported that some districts may not wantTAAS or alternative assessment results for studentswith disabilities included, because of a concern thatthis will be used to determine and possibly reduce theaccountability rating of their campuses.

Issue 2. Attitude is a barrier to implementing assess-ment and accountability systems that include studentswith disabilities.

Members of the focus group report that a primary bar-rier to greater participation of students with disabili-ties in state assessments in Texas is a negative attitude.They indicate that practitioners in the field fmd the col-lection of the data on perfonnance results of studentswith disabilities not only time consuming and difficult,but also feel the information collected is not used bydistrict and campus decision makers and policymakers.The perception is reinforced if available data are ex-cluded in the process of making decisions at the statelevel.

Issue 3. There are concerns about the resourcesneeded to expand and implement the assessment andaccountability systems.

Cost is a concern in the development and implementa-tion of an expanded testing and accountability system.Major decisions must be made about the cost (mon-etary as well as other resources) versus benefit of ac-commodations or alternative assessment systems. Withstaffing limitations at the TEA, alternative resourcesneed to be included in developmental activities. How-ever, it should be noted that a significant amount ofeducational resources support special education stu-dents in the public schools. The Texas legislature hasdetermined that there needs to be greater accountabil-ity for the use of those funds in improving performanceof students with disabilities.

Issue 4. There is concern about the alignment be-tween state and federal statutes and expanded assess-ment and accountability systems.

State laws, rules, and regulations about assessment andaccountability systems are ever changing. Senate Bill1 requires that the assessment and accountability sys-tems in Texas will expand and change to include stu-dents who are currently exempt from state assessments.There is concern that there must be safeguards to en-sure that any changes do not inadvertently conflict withfederal nondiscrimination statutes and regulations.

Issue S. There is concern that implementing an ex-panded statewide assessment and accountability sys-tem could do harm to students with disabilities.

Some parents in Texas, especially parents of studentswith severe disabilities, do not want their children ex-posed to statewide assessments. It is thought that theIEP is intended to take care of the charting of progressof these students toward accomplishment of IEP ob-jectives, accounting for the results of their educationalexperiences. Other parents do want their children toparticipate in statewide assessments, in order for themto experience testing situations and be a part of the ac-countability system. Both parents and educators haveexpressed concern about the potential negative impacton students over the continued use of the TAAS, ad-ministered with or without modifications, in the absenceof more appropriate options.

ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYINGAN ACTION PLAN FOR TEXAS

Nine assumptions that underlie the recom-mended action plan for Texas were identifiedby the focus group. Five of the assumptions

relate primarily to the accountability system and fourassumptions relate primarily to assessments. The as-sumptions are listed here, then discussed below.

20

Accountability

1. All students should be included inone comprehensive accotmtabilityand reporting system to ensure thatthe mission, limas, and objectives ofpublic education are met.

33

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

2. An accountability system should befair and recognize the diversity ofstudents in Texas' school population.

3. A comprehensive accountabilitysystem should be subject to continu-ous improvement while ensuringlongitudinal consistency.

4. When students with disabilitiesparticipate in a state accountabilitysystem, there will be greater focus onimproving results, and expectationsfor dleir performance will increase.

5. The successful implementation of anexpanded accountability andassessment system is directlydependent on the professionaldevelopment supporting it.

Assessment Assumptions

1. It will be necessary to provide somestudents with disabilities withreasonable accommodations so theycan participate in assessments.

2. A small percentage of students withdisabilities (especially those withsignificant disabilities or those in adifferent curriculum) need alternativeassessment procedures.

3. It will be necessary to providealternative assessments for studentswhose participation in general stateassessments is not appropriate.

4. An expanded assessment system thatincludes students with disabilitiesmust comply with federal and statenondiscrimination regulations.

Accountability Assumption I.All students should be included in one comprehen-sive accountability and reporting system to ensure thatthe mission, goals, and objectives of public educationare met.

The mission, goals, and objectives of public educationin Texas are for all students in the system. We cannotknow whether these are being met if the performanceof only part of the student population is reported. Thisis true whether an educational system adopts an inclu-sive philosophy or not. By including reports on theperfonnance of only part of the population, we get in-accurate information, especially if there are differencesamong educational units in the extent of participation.Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, access to afree appropriate public education has been the right ofevery child with a disability. It is difficult, at best, to

ensure that the purpose of this law is being met unlessthere is a comprehensive accountability system for theresults of education for all students.

Accountability Assumption 2.An accountability system should be/air and recog-nize the diversity of students in Texas' school popula-tion.

Increasingly, students in today's Texas public schoolsare becoming more diverse in their characteristics. TheAPA Standards for Tests and Assessments reinforcesthe importance of recognizing the diversity of studentsin today's schools when assessments are developed, toreduce the possible introduction of bias. If an account-ability system is not fair it will, over time, become in-creasingly less appropriate for greater numbers of stu-dents. An unfair system, however, is inappropriate forany student.

Accountability Assumption 3. A comprehensive ac-countability system should be subject to continuousimprovement while ensuring longitudinal consistency.

Over time, there will be major advances in assessmenttechnology. The Texas accountability system must bedynamic (it must allow for revisions). At the same time,trends and comparisons are important. The balance be-tween continuous improvement of an accountabilitysystem and stability for longitudinal comparisons is atenuous one at best. Still, it is important to continuallyaddress this issue, and to determine when decisions needto tip the balance one way or the other.

Accountability Assumption 4.When students with disabilities participate in a stateaccountability system, there will be greater focus onimproving results, and expectations for their perfor-mance will increase.

When an individual is held accountable for certainthings, those things become more important than thosefor which the individual is not held accountable. Like-wise, when district and campus ratings are based onthe progress of every student in every classroom, therewill be greater focus on the learning and progress of allstudents. This is the masoning behind incentive sys-tems like that of the TAAS and the Texas accountabil-ity system. All students should count equally in the

21

3.1

Including Students with Disabilities in Stmewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

calculations that are the bases for recognitions andawards if all students in the education system are tobenefit from the intended consequences of an incen-tive system.

Accountability Assumption 5.The succeseul implementation of an expanded ac-

countability and assessment system is directly depen-dent on the professional development supporting it.

Like many other innovations and changes in educationand other domains, the critical stakeholder buy-in andsupport is dependent on the participation of infonnedstakeholders in decision-making. For these things tohappen, there must be adequate and appropriate pro-fessional development. This is true in the area of as-sessment and accountability, just as it is in the area ofinstructional techniques. It is also important to involveparents along with educators in this professional de-velopment. Good evidence of the importance of pro-fessional development comes from recent events in Brit-ain, where teachers who did not Understand the assess-ment system and were not adequately trained about itwere successful in overturning the implementation ofthe system.

Assessment Assumption 1.It will be necessary to provide some students with dis-abilities with reasonable accommodations so they canparticipate in assessment.

Just as some students need accommodations to partici-pate in instruction, so do some students need appropri-ate accommodations to participate in state assessmentsin Texas. This notion has been supported for some timeby most states, and recently, by the national educationdata collection system. It is not clear how many stu-dents may need accommodations. It has been estimatedthat approximately 85% of students with disabilitiescould appropriately participate in regular assessments,either with or without accommodations. The frequencywith which accommodations have been implementedin each state is unknown. In a follow-up study of ex-clusion hum NAEP, the National Academy of Educa-tion (in press) found that approximately 85% of stu-dents with disabilities could be tested with NAEP or acomparable assessment.

Assessment Assumption 2.A small percentage of students with disabilities (ape-cial& those with signrwant disabilities or those in aAfferent curriculum) need alternative assessmentprocedures.

It is generally recognized that some students in Texasschools have disabilities that are so severe that theycannot participate in the regular assessment, but needan alternative assessment instead. In Kentucky, wherethe accountability and assessment programs were de-veloped simultaneously in the massive court-orderededucational reform, it was found that less than 112 ofone percent of all students needed an alternative as-sessment. This probably translates to less than 20% ofstudents with disabilities, much below the average of50% of students with disabilities typically excludedfrom statewide assessments.

Assessment Assumption 3.It will be necessary to provide alternative assessments

for students whose participation in general state as-sessments is not appropriate.

22

lt will take time to develop alternative assessments. Itis best to develop them over time, with adequate fieldtesting. Among some of the considerations for under-taking the development of an alternative assessmentare:

What are the criteria by which a student will beallowed to participate in the alternative assess-ment?Should there be a standard set or state-approvedlist (i.e. comparable to what is done for LEP stu-dents in Texas) of alternative assessments? Whatallowance will need to be made for students withdisabilities that preclude the use of standard as-sessments (e.g. portfolios)?Who will be responsible for determining that astudent meets the identified criteria for partici-pating in the alternative assessment?Should limits be placed on campuses or districtsfor the number or percentage of students allowedto take the alternative assessment?What are the implications for graduation and re-ceiving a diploma for those students participat-ing in the alternative assessment system?

36

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Should the performance standards for the alter-native assessment be correlated to TAAS, so thatthe results from the two systems can be aggre-gated, or will they be kept on separate scales? Ifaggregated, are the scores from both systemsequally weighted?

Who will score the alternative assessment? Doesthere need to be alignment between the scoringrubrics for all forms of assessment?

Will the alternative assessment system reflect thesame educational standards as the regular assess-ment system, or will a different set, or a selectsubset, of standards be used?

How will alternative assessments be aligned withthe essential knowledge and skills for the foun-dation curriculum? How should this be evalu-ated for students under different curricular pro-grams (e.g. basic life skills, community-basedinstruction)?

How is progress, as indicated on the IndividualEducational Plan, related to an altemative assess-ment system? Does it play a role in measuringeducational success for this subset of students?How will the alternative assessments be incor-porated into the state's Results-Based Monitor-ing System?

Assessment Assumption 4.An expanded assessment system that includes studentswith disabilities must comply with federal and statenondiscrimination regulations.

At least two Federal ,bvs probably have an imput onhow students with disabilities are treated in a statewideassessment: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act nf1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ALA,Public Law 101-336). Recent federal legislation foreducational reform (Goals 2000), elementary and sec-ondary education (Improving America's Schools Act),and transition to work (School to Work OpportunitiesAct) support the tenets in Section 504 and ADA. TheIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) nowbeing considered for reauthorization requires partici-pation of students with disabilities in statewide assess-ments. Furthermore, in Texas the new requirements inthe Texas Education Code will take precedence in en-suring that an expanded assessment system is consid-ered.

AN ACTION PLAN FOR TEXAS

Focus group members worked in groups, and so-licited input from their constituents throughoutthe state on possible actions to take in Texas to-

ward the goal of developing a comprehensive assess-ment and accountability system that includes studentswith disabilities. In generating the action plan, the facus group first addressed each issue individually, giv-ing consideration to what could be done immediately,what needed to be done in the future, ard what werethe research needs. All recommendations then wereconsidered together so that redundancies could be elimi-nated. After actions were identified by issue area (par-ticipation, accommodation, reporting, implementation),all identified strategies were categorized into one ofthree components: networking, research, and devel-opment. The development strategies were further sub-divided into assessment, policy, reporting, and train-ing. The detailed action plans are on the pages thatfollow, with information provided for each strategy onthe rationale for the strategy, suggested approaches thatmight be taken, where responsibilities might be placed,possible products, and a suggested timeline. A sepa-rate list is included for resource contact persons foragencies or organizations fecommended for collabora-tive work. Below is an outline listing of the strategiesincluded in the action plan:

Networking

Annually update information on otherstates' guidelines for participation,accommodations, and reporting. (N1)

Track findings of legal cases regardingissues in participation in assessmentsand use of testing accommodations.(N2)

Track ongoing state and federal researchon issues on participation, acconunoda-tion, and reporting of the performanceof students with disabilities in state andnational assessments. (N3)

Track development and modification ofparticipation and accommodationguidelines at the national level. (N4)

Maintain relationships with and useestablished links with state educationagency personnel in other states toaddress assessment issues. (NS)

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Research

Conduct an assessment study of studentswith disabilities who are exempted fromTAAS during the Spring 1996 adminis-tration. (R1)

Annually review the unintendedconsequences of including students withdisabilities in state assessment andaccountability systems (e.g., retention in

=over-referral for testing,ins). (R2)

Development:Assessment

Build an alternative assessment systemfor students with disabilities who cannotparticipate in the standard stateassessment, even with modifications.(DM)

Continue to include students withdisabilities in the development of anyfuture state assessments and anyrevisions of the current TAAS. (DA2)

Utilize a panel of practitioners whoserve on a continuing basis as anadvisory group to many of the strategiesin this action plan. (DA3)

Development:Policy

Develop guidelines for deciding thekind of assessment (standard, modified,or alternative state assessment) to betaken by students with disabilities, andtrack adherence to the guidelines.(DPI)

Review existing Texas accommodationsguidelines; modify these as necessary,and track adherence to the guidelines.

(DP2)

Development:Reporting

Determine how results for students withdisabilities will be included in theassessment component of the Texasaccountability system, (includingreporting of the numbers of studentswho were exempted from assessments)and in all publislwd or unpublishedreports of results. (DRI)

24

Phase in a requirement to report resultsfor all students in district or stateassessment/accountability reports.Results should be reported for allsmdents with disabilities. Results shouldbe coded by category, but results shouldnever be reported by category for stateaccountability reports. Regional andstate data by disability may be com-pleted for program research purposesonly. (DR2)

Assign responsibility for reportingscores to the student's district ofresidence and home campus. (DR3)

Report both absolute scores and changein performance scores for all students.(DR4)

Phase in a requirement to report on theprogress of all students in any rating orrecognition system set up for campusesor dist:ricts. (DRS)

Develop descriptions of the reportingsystem (specified in second reportingstrategy) for use by the media, parents,and school district personnel. (DR6)

Development:Training

Provide training or continuing educationto ARD committee members, includingprrents, in making decisions aboutparticipation of students with disabilitiesin assessments, appropriate accommoda-tions, and assessment options. (DTI)

Provide training on data reporting,analysis, and interpretation for campus/district improvement planning. (DT2)

A crosswalk of critical issues and action plan strate-gies is provided in Exhibit 5 to demonstrate thatevery strategy included in the Recommended ActionPlan addresses at least one of the issues that wasidentified for Texas, and that every issue identifiedfor Texas has been addressed by at least one strategyin the action plan. A depiction of possible timelinessuggested in the table is provided.

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

Ni

.v

1-,

FL.

s.

A.,

..

ApP

Ct

P O

flh*

roU

\ct.

ts

TIiO

i1flb

.,

NE

TW

OR

KIN

GN

l. A

nnua

lly u

pdat

ein

form

atio

n on

oth

erst

ates

' gui

delin

es f

orpa

rtic

ipat

ion,

acco

mm

odat

ion,

and

repo

rtin

g.

It is

impo

rtan

t to

trac

k ot

her

stat

es'

adva

nces

in p

artic

ipat

ion,

acc

om-

mod

atio

n, a

nd r

epor

ting

guid

elin

es,

and

othe

r as

sess

men

t pra

ctic

es(e

.g.,

grad

uatio

n ex

ams)

. Thi

sin

form

atio

n ca

n be

use

d in

per

iodi

cup

date

s of

Tex

as g

uide

lines

, and

will

elim

inat

e th

e ne

ed to

dup

licat

eef

fort

s of

oth

ers.

Obt

ain

sum

mar

y do

cum

ents

of

othe

rst

ates

' gui

delin

es o

n pa

rtic

ipat

ion,

acco

mm

odat

ion,

and

rep

ortin

g (e

.g.,

seve

ral N

atio

nal C

ente

r on

Edu

catio

nal

Out

com

es d

ocum

ents

) an

d ot

her

stat

epr

actic

es (

e.g.

, rep

ort b

y th

e N

orth

Cen

tral

Reg

iona

l Edu

catio

n L

abor

ator

yan

d th

e C

ounc

il of

Chi

ef S

tate

Sch

ool

Off

icer

s),

Req

uest

ann

ual u

pdat

es.

Obt

ain

actu

al d

ocum

ents

fro

m th

est

ates

as

need

ed; d

eter

min

e co

mpa

rabi

l-ity

to d

istr

ict s

ize,

stu

dent

cou

nt, e

tc.

Col

labo

ratio

nam

ong

TE

Ape

rson

nel i

nac

coun

tabi

lity,

stud

ent

asse

ssm

ent,

and

spec

ial e

duca

tion

Sum

mar

y of

issu

es a

ndup

date

s of

sta

tegu

idei

nes,

polic

ies,

and

prac

tices

Tra

ckin

g of

asse

ssm

ents

use

dto

mak

e hi

ghsc

hool

gra

duat

ion

deci

sion

s

Beg

inim

med

iate

ly;

cont

inue

eac

hye

ar

N2.

Tra

ck f

indi

ngs

ofle

gal c

ases

reg

ardi

ngis

sues

in p

artic

ipat

ion

inas

sess

men

ts a

nd u

se o

fte

stin

g ac

com

mod

atio

ns.

The

re a

re n

umer

ous

lega

l iss

ues

rela

ted

to te

stin

g pa

rtic

ipat

ion

and

acco

mm

odat

ions

. Col

labo

ratio

nw

ith o

rgan

izat

ions

and

indi

vidu

als

who

reg

ular

ly tr

ack

lega

l iss

ues

inas

sess

men

t wou

ld e

limin

ate

the

need

to d

uplic

ate

the

effo

rt.

Wor

k in

col

labo

ratio

n w

ith th

ese

lega

lex

pert

s to

sta

y in

form

ed o

f th

e fi

ndin

gs in

lega

l cas

es w

egar

ding

issu

es in

par

ticip

a-tio

n in

ass

essm

ents

, tes

ting

acco

mm

oda-

tions

, and

rep

ortin

g of

res

ults

.

Col

labo

ratio

nam

ong

TE

Ape

rson

nel i

nas

sess

men

t,ac

coun

tabi

lity,

spec

ial e

duca

tion

and

lega

l

Info

rmat

ion

onco

urt c

ases

and

late

st le

gal

find

ings

rel

ated

to p

artic

ipat

ion,

acco

mm

odat

ions

,an

d re

port

ing

ofas

sess

men

tre

sults

Beg

inim

med

iate

ly;

cont

inue

eac

hye

ar

N3.

Tra

ck o

ngoi

ng s

tate

and

fede

ral r

esea

rch

onis

sues

in p

artic

ipat

ion,

acco

mm

odat

ion

and

repo

rtin

g re

sults

of

the

perf

orm

ance

of

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

in s

tate

and

natio

nal a

sses

s-m

ents

.

38

Man

y gr

oups

and

age

ncie

s ar

ecu

rren

tly c

ondu

ctin

g re

sear

ch o

nis

sues

in p

artic

ipat

ion,

acc

omm

oda-

tion,

and

rep

ortin

g. R

athe

r th

andu

plic

ate

this

res

earc

h, tr

ack

the

effo

rts

of th

ese

proj

ects

and

eval

uate

thei

r ap

plic

atio

n to

Tex

as,

as w

ell a

s co

mpa

rabi

lity

to d

istr

ict

size

of

stud

ent p

opul

atio

n.

The

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion,

Off

ice

of S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Prog

ram

s(O

SEP)

, is

fund

ing

inve

stig

atio

ns o

fte

chni

cal i

ssue

s in

incl

udin

g st

uden

tsw

ith d

isab

ilitie

s in

sta

te a

sses

smen

tsy

stes

.T

he O

ffic

e of

Edu

catio

nal R

esea

rch

and

Impr

ovem

ent (

OE

RI)

is f

undi

ngSt

ate

Dep

artm

ents

of

Edu

catio

n to

cond

uct r

esea

rch

on th

e de

velo

pmen

tof

sta

te a

sses

smen

t pro

gram

s, a

ndso

me

of th

ese

will

stu

dy in

clud

ing

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

and

limite

dE

nglis

h pr

ofic

ienc

y.

A c

olla

bora

tive

effo

rt o

f sp

ecia

led

ucat

ion,

stu

dent

asse

ssm

ent,

acco

unta

bilit

y, a

ndpo

licy,

pla

nnin

g,an

d re

sear

chpe

rson

nel

Lis

t of

find

ings

from

the

rese

arch

on a

sses

smen

t

Eva

luat

ion

ofap

plic

abili

ty to

Tex

as' i

ssue

s

Ong

oing

1996

-200

0sc

hool

yea

rs 39

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

In S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

heIs

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N,..

- 1A

''

N4.

Tra

ck d

evel

op-

men

t and

mod

ific

atio

nT

he N

atio

nal C

ente

r fo

r E

duca

tion

Stat

istic

s (N

CE

S) a

nd th

e N

atio

nal

Inte

ract

with

per

sonn

el a

t the

NC

ES

and

NA

GB

to tr

ack

the

deve

lopm

ent a

ndT

EA

-app

oint

edlia

ison

to th

eO

ccas

iona

l rep

orts

to T

EA

per

sonn

elO

ngoi

ng,

begi

nnin

gof

par

ticip

atio

n an

dA

sses

smen

t Gov

erni

ng B

oard

mod

ific

atio

n of

gui

delin

es f

or m

akin

gna

tiona

l gro

ups

Fall,

199

5ac

com

mod

atio

n(N

AG

B)

have

dev

elop

ed, a

nd a

rede

cisi

ons

abou

t par

ticip

atio

n of

stu

dent

sA

n ad

viso

ry p

anel

guid

elin

es a

t the

natio

nal l

evel

,re

gula

rly

refi

ning

, gui

delin

es f

orin

clud

ing

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

in th

e N

atio

nal A

sses

smen

t of

Edu

catio

nal P

rogr

ess

(NA

EP)

. It i

sim

port

ant t

o fo

llow

the

activ

ities

of

thes

e gr

oups

bec

ause

thei

r gu

ide-

lines

oft

en s

erve

as

the

basi

s fo

rgu

idel

ines

dev

elop

ed b

y st

ates

.

with

dis

abili

ties

in N

AE

P, a

nd g

uide

lines

for

deci

ding

wha

t acc

omm

odat

ions

topr

ovid

e.

of p

ract

ition

ers,

incl

udin

g ps

ycho

-m

etri

cian

s, a

p-po

inte

d to

iden

tify

tech

nica

l im

plic

a-tio

ns o

f ac

com

mo-

datio

ns a

nd a

pplic

a-tio

n of

nat

iona

lgu

idel

ines

for

incl

udin

g st

uden

tsw

ith d

isab

ilitie

s to

4F

Tex

as e

ffor

ts

N5.

Mai

ntai

nR

athe

r th

an o

pera

te in

isol

atio

nT

he C

ounc

il of

Chi

ef S

tate

Sch

ool

TE

A r

epre

sent

ativ

eSC

ASS

pro

duct

sA

pplie

d fo

rre

latio

nshi

ps w

ithes

tabl

ishe

d lin

ks w

ithw

hen

addr

essi

ng im

port

ant i

ssue

s in

part

icip

atio

n, a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, a

ndO

ffic

ers

(CC

SSO

), in

col

labo

ratio

n w

ithth

e N

atio

nal C

ente

r on

Edu

catio

nal

on th

e SC

ASS

Con

tinui

ng c

olla

bo-

Res

ults

of

pilo

tm

embe

rshi

p,Su

mm

er, 1

995

Stat

e E

duca

tion

repo

rtin

g, it

mak

es g

ood

sens

e to

Out

com

es (

NC

EO

), is

for

min

g a

colla

bo-

ratio

n of

stu

dent

stud

ies

cond

ucte

d in

Age

ncy

pers

onne

l in

inve

st a

sm

all s

um o

f m

oney

and

rativ

e St

ate

Col

labo

rativ

e on

Stu

dent

asse

ssm

ent,

ac-

SCA

SS m

embe

rO

ngoi

ngot

her

stat

es to

add

ress

time

to e

stab

lish

wor

king

rel

atio

n-A

sses

smY

nt a

nd S

tand

ards

(SC

ASS

) th

atco

unta

bilit

y, a

ndst

ates

asse

ssm

ent i

ssue

s.sh

ips

amon

g st

ates

.w

ill f

ocus

on

issu

es in

incl

udin

g st

uden

tsw

ith d

isab

ilitie

s in

sta

te a

sses

smen

ts.

Tex

as h

as a

pplie

d fo

r m

embe

rshi

p.

spec

ial e

duca

tion

Col

labo

rativ

epr

oble

m s

olvi

ngi

Alt0

41

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

in S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

Ntil

isi

,

RE

SE

AR

CH

Rl.

Con

duct

an

Man

y st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

sT

EA

sho

uld

issu

e an

RFP

to f

und

aC

olla

bora

tive

effo

rtR

esea

rch

repo

rt o

nA

nnua

las

sess

men

t stu

dy o

fw

ho h

ave

been

exe

mpt

ed f

rom

colla

bora

tive

effo

rt a

mon

g 3

to 5

by 3

to 5

ESC

s, w

ithas

sess

abili

ty o

fre

port

ing

onst

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

sw

ho a

re e

xem

pted

fro

mT

AA

S co

uld

part

icip

ate

with

out

acco

mm

odat

ions

, oth

ers

coul

dE

duca

tion

Serv

ice

Cen

ters

(E

SCs)

,ge

ogra

phic

ally

rep

rese

ntat

ive

of th

eon

e E

SC s

ervi

ng a

sfi

scal

age

nt a

nd

stud

ents

with

disa

bilit

ies

who

are

futu

re te

sts

TA

AS

duri

ng th

e Sp

ring

1996

adm

inis

trat

ion,

part

icip

ate

with

acc

omm

odat

ions

,w

hile

stil

l oth

ers

need

an

alte

rna-

tive

asse

ssm

ent s

yste

m. I

t is

impo

rtan

t to

docu

men

t the

act

ual

num

bers

of

stud

ents

who

are

inea

ch g

roup

, and

to e

xam

ine

regi

onal

var

iabi

lity

in n

umbe

rs.

Prev

ious

stu

dies

con

duct

ed s

houl

dbe

rev

iew

ed.

who

le s

tate

, to

cond

uct a

n as

sess

men

tst

udy

whi

ch in

clud

es s

ampl

e gr

oups

of s

tude

nts

in th

eir

regi

ons.

The

proc

edur

es f

or th

e st

udy

shou

ldre

plic

ate

thos

e us

ed b

y A

mer

ican

Inst

itute

s fo

r R

esea

rch

(Pal

o A

lto,

CA

) in

the

NA

EP

follo

w-u

p st

udy

cond

ucte

d fo

r th

e N

atio

nal A

cade

my

of E

duca

tion.

The

suc

cess

ful b

idde

r sh

ould

inve

sti-

gate

(1)

whe

ther

thes

e st

uden

ts c

anta

ke th

e st

anda

rd s

tate

ass

essm

ent,

(2)

wha

t it w

ould

take

to d

ocum

ent t

here

sults

of

educ

atin

g th

ese

stud

ents

,an

d (3

) th

e nu

mbe

r of

stu

dent

s w

how

ere

exem

pted

bec

ause

acc

omm

oda-

tions

wer

e no

t ava

ilabl

e. S

tude

nt d

ata

elem

ents

sho

uld

be c

lear

ly id

entif

ied

prio

r to

test

ing.

proj

ect l

eade

rex

empt

ed f

rom

TA

AS

duri

ng S

prin

g19

96 te

stin

g

Bac

kgro

und

info

r-m

atio

n fo

r w

ritin

ggu

idel

ines

on

part

ici-

patio

n an

d ac

com

-m

odat

ions

inas

sess

men

t

Com

plet

edan

d re

port

file

d by

Aug

ust,

1996

Add

ition

al s

tudi

es s

houl

d be

con

-du

cted

on

futu

re te

sts

follo

win

g th

eor

igin

al s

tudy

.

AI

Cy

Li K

,4

3

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

in S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

NA

"R

il,

4,

,t

"'r

R2.

Ann

ually

rev

iew

the

unin

tend

edT

he e

xpec

tatio

n th

at g

reat

erpa

rtic

ipat

ion

of s

tude

nts

with

Tra

ck th

e oc

curr

ence

s of

gra

de r

eten

tion,

refe

rral

s fo

r te

stin

g, a

nd d

ropo

ut r

ates

Col

labo

rativ

e ef

fort

of T

EA

per

sonn

elR

epor

t on

chan

ge in

num

ber

of s

tude

nts

July

, 199

6

cons

eque

nces

of

disa

bilit

ies

in a

sses

smen

ts w

illam

ong

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties.

Fol

low

in s

tude

nt a

sses

s-ta

king

sta

te a

sses

s-A

nnua

lin

clud

ing

stud

ents

lead

to m

ore

stud

ents

ach

ievi

ngup

stu

dies

don

e in

pre

viou

s ye

ars.

men

t, ac

coun

tabi

l-m

ents

and

dat

a on

upda

tes

with

dis

abili

ties

inhi

gher

leve

l out

com

es m

ay n

otity

, and

spe

cial

unin

tend

ed c

onse

-st

ate

asse

ssm

ent a

ndac

coun

tabi

lity

syst

ems

(e.g

.,re

tent

ion

in g

rade

,ov

er-r

efer

ral f

orte

stin

g, d

ropo

uts)

.

actu

ally

hap

pen.

It i

s im

port

ant t

otr

ack

the

syst

em f

or u

nint

ende

dco

nseq

uenc

es.

educ

atio

nqu

ence

s

Ana

lysi

s of

the

cons

eque

nces

of

anex

pand

ed s

yste

m o

fac

coun

tabi

lity

I

44

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

in S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

45

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N,

1,0-

0,,

,1

7a

ti- n

''1

N0

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

-A

SS

ES

SM

EN

T

DA

L B

uild

an

It is

cle

ar th

at s

ome

stud

ents

with

TE

A s

houl

d is

sue

an R

FP f

or d

evel

op-

Col

labo

rativ

e ef

fort

Alte

rnat

ive

asse

ss-

Incl

ude

the

alte

rnat

ive

asse

ss-

disa

bilit

ies

will

nee

d to

dem

on-

men

t of

an a

ltern

ativ

e as

sess

men

t sys

tem

of T

EA

per

sonn

el o

fm

ent s

yste

m f

orT

AA

S fo

llow

-m

ent s

yste

m f

orst

uden

ts w

ithst

rate

thei

r m

aste

ry o

f cu

rric

ular

obje

ctiv

es th

roug

h al

tern

ativ

edu

ring

199

5-96

. Dat

a fr

om n

etw

orki

ngan

d re

sear

ch a

ctiv

ities

in th

is a

ctio

n pl

anst

uden

t ass

essm

ent,

acco

unta

bilit

y, a

ndst

uden

ts w

ho a

reun

able

to p

artic

ipat

eup

stu

dy(1

996)

disa

bilit

ies

who

cann

ot p

artic

ipat

e in

asse

ssm

ent.

It is

impo

rtan

t to

deve

lop

an a

sses

smen

t sys

tem

for

shou

ld s

erve

as

inpu

t inf

orm

atio

n,Sy

stem

s in

pla

ce in

oth

er s

tate

s sh

ould

spec

ial e

duca

tion

in th

e st

anda

rd s

tate

asse

ssm

ent

Pilo

t dat

ath

e st

anda

rd s

tate

asse

ssm

ent,

even

with

mod

ific

atio

ns.

thes

e st

uden

ts.

be s

tudi

ed a

nd r

eplic

atio

n, w

ith o

rw

ithou

t mod

ific

atio

n, s

houl

d be

con

sid-

ered

. The

pan

el o

f ex

pert

s fr

om D

A3

coul

d se

rve

as a

n ad

viso

ry g

roup

for

this

activ

ity.

Use

a m

ulti-

year

pha

se-i

n pr

oces

s. P

ilot

syst

em d

urin

g 19

96-9

7; B

ench

mar

kdu

ring

199

7-98

. Ful

l im

plem

enta

tion

in

Adv

isor

y pa

nel

com

plet

e by

end

of 1

996-

97; b

ench

mar

kda

ta c

ompl

ete

by 1

997-

98;

impl

emen

ta-

tion

by 1

998-

9919

98-9

9.

DA

2. C

ontin

ue to

A m

ajor

sou

rce

of e

xclu

sion

of

Stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

shou

ld c

on-

Col

labo

rativ

e ef

fort

Tes

ts th

at a

reO

ngoi

ngin

clud

e st

uden

ts w

ithst

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s fr

omtin

ue to

be

incl

uded

in it

em tr

yout

s an

dof

per

sonn

el f

rom

Sens

itive

to th

edi

sabi

litie

s in

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f an

Yfu

ture

new

sta

te

asse

ssm

ents

is th

eir

excl

usio

nfr

om th

e sa

mpl

e w

hen

asse

ssm

ents

are

deve

lope

d, r

esul

ting

in

in th

e st

anda

rdiz

atio

n of

any

new

sta

teas

sess

men

ts.

Item

cha

ract

eris

tic c

urve

s sh

ould

be

Spec

ial e

duca

tion,

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t,ac

coun

tabi

lity,

and

need

s of

stu

dent

sw

ith d

isab

ilitie

s, a

ndte

sts

that

stu

dent

sas

sess

men

ts a

nd a

nYin

appr

opri

ate

item

s (i

n fo

rmat

and

/ge

nera

ted

and

alte

rnat

ive

met

hods

for

polic

y, p

lann

ing

and

with

dis

abili

ties

can

revi

sion

s of

the

curr

ent T

AA

S.or

leve

l) f

or s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

-tie

s. P

artic

ipat

ion

of th

ese

stud

ents

dur

ing

deve

lopm

ent

enab

les

test

dev

elop

ers

to s

pot

item

s th

at d

o no

t wor

k fo

r th

ese

stud

ents

or

that

nee

d to

be

adap

ted

so th

ey c

an w

ork,

and

to id

entif

yar

eas

need

ing

adap

ted

test

s or

new

alte

rnat

ive

test

s.

scal

ing

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

, sim

ilar

tow

hat i

s no

w o

ccur

ring

for

the

Nat

iona

lA

sses

smen

t of

Edu

catio

nal P

rogr

ess

(NA

EP)

The

adv

isor

y pa

nel (

see

DA

3) c

ould

advi

se a

nd a

ssis

t in

this

eff

ort.

.

rese

arch

Tes

t Dev

elop

ers

Adv

isor

y Pa

nel

take

4 t)

.4

y

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

In S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

Nw

"!''

)""

N,f

3,--

-'

';',%

.,

i,,,

,,

,,,',;

``:-

V41

="'

,.

:i','

-'''

'''',T

woi

:-w

-'.,'.

....v

,WO

.,,:«

Xi':

DA

3. U

tiliz

e .a

pan

elM

any

of th

e is

sues

to b

e ad

-U

tiliz

e a

pane

l of

prac

titio

ners

, at l

east

two

Com

mis

sion

er o

fPa

nel o

f ex

pert

s w

hoIm

med

iate

lyof

pra

titio

ners

who

dres

sed

are

very

tech

nica

l in

of w

hom

sho

uld

have

exp

ertis

e in

ass

ess-

Edu

catio

nca

n pr

ovid

e ad

vice

serv

e on

a c

ontin

uing

basi

s as

an

advi

sory

grou

p to

man

y of

the

activ

ities

in th

isac

tion

plan

.

natu

re (

e.g.

, the

eff

ect o

n va

lidity

whe

n us

ing

acco

mm

odat

ions

);th

e as

sist

ance

of

spec

ially

trai

ned

pers

onne

l is

need

ed.

men

t of

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

on im

plem

enta

tion

ofst

rate

gies

in th

isac

tion

plan

4(6

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

In S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

4L

I

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N.

...

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

PO

LIC

Y-

DP1

. Dev

elop

AR

D c

omm

ittee

s ne

ed s

peci

fic

Rev

iew

exi

stin

g w

ritte

n m

ater

ials

rel

ated

Col

labo

rativ

e ef

fort

Set o

f gu

idel

ines

Beg

ingu

idel

ines

for

guid

elin

es f

c de

cidi

ng th

e ki

ndto

par

ticip

atio

n in

ass

essm

ent (

see

of p

erso

nnel

info

r us

e by

AR

Dde

velo

pmen

tde

cidi

ng th

e ki

nd o

fas

sess

men

t (st

anda

rd,

mod

ifie

d, o

r al

tern

a-

of a

sses

smen

t a s

tude

nt ta

kes.

Gui

delin

es w

ill e

nsur

e st

atew

ide

cons

iste

ncy

in a

ppro

pria

te u

se o

f

docu

men

ts f

rom

the

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter

onE

duca

tiona

l Out

com

es).

The

se d

ocum

ents

shou

ld b

e st

eppi

ng-o

ff p

oint

s fo

r th

ose

spec

ial e

duca

tion,

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t,ac

coun

tabi

lity,

and

com

mitt

ees

inm

akin

g de

cisi

ons

abou

t the

app

ropr

i-

conc

urre

ntw

ith d

esig

n of

asse

ssm

ent

five

sta

te a

sses

smen

t)to

be

take

n by

.

asse

ssm

ent o

ptio

ns.

who

dev

elop

the

guid

elin

es,

In d

evel

opin

g de

cisi

on-m

akin

g cr

iteri

a, it

polic

y, p

lann

ing,

and

rese

arch

, with

ate

asse

ssm

ent f

or a

stud

ent w

ithop

tions

(alte

rnat

ive

stud

ents

with

Bot

h tr

aini

ng a

nd tr

acki

ng a

rew

ill b

e he

lpfu

l to

deve

lop

met

hods

for

fiel

d in

put

disa

bilit

ies

asse

ssm

ent

disa

bilit

ies,

and

trac

kne

cess

ary

to e

nsur

e ap

prop

riat

ede

cidi

ng w

hen

an a

sses

smen

t is

"app

ropr

i-sy

stem

not

adhe

renc

e to

the

and

cons

iste

nt d

ecis

ion

mak

ing.

ate.

"C

onsi

sten

t dec

i-re

ady

until

guid

elin

es.

Com

mun

icat

e th

e gu

idel

ines

to E

SCs,

LE

As,

and

AR

D c

omm

ittee

s, in

clud

ing

pare

nts.

sion

-mak

ing

prac

tices

1998

-99)

DP2

. Rev

iew

A c

onsi

sten

t set

of

guid

elin

es is

Rev

iew

exi

stin

g w

ritte

n m

ater

ials

rel

ated

Col

labo

rativ

e ef

fort

Set o

f gu

idel

ines

Imm

edia

teex

istin

g T

exas

need

ed to

mak

e ac

com

mod

atio

nto

use

of

acco

mm

odat

ions

in a

sses

smen

tof

per

sonn

el in

for

use

by A

RD

and

on-g

oing

acco

mm

odat

ion

guid

elin

es; m

odif

yth

ese

as n

eces

sary

,an

d tr

ack

adhe

renc

eto

the

guid

elin

es,

deci

sion

s. E

ven

with

gui

delin

es,

deci

sion

-mak

ing

may

be

inco

n-si

sten

t. B

oth

trai

ning

and

trac

king

are

nec

essa

ry to

insu

reco

nsis

tent

dec

isio

n m

akin

g.

(see

doc

umen

ts f

rom

the

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter

on E

duca

tiona

l Out

com

es).

Incl

ude

deci

sion

-mak

ing

crite

ria

for

deci

ding

whe

n an

acc

omm

odat

ion

is"a

ppro

pria

te."

Com

mun

icat

e th

e gu

idel

ines

to E

SCs,

LE

As

and

AR

D c

omm

ittee

s, in

clud

ing

pare

nts.

spec

ial e

duca

tion,

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t,ac

coun

tabi

lity,

and

polic

y, p

lann

ing,

and

rese

arch

, with

fiel

d in

put

com

mitt

ees

inm

akin

g de

cisi

ons

abou

t app

ropr

iate

acco

mm

odat

ions

for

a st

uden

t with

disa

bilit

ies

Con

sist

ent d

eci-

sion

-mak

ing

prac

tices

" 0

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

in S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he is

sues

51

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

NA

ppPo

aöh

:i-,

st-v

flup

onsi

bffl

ty-

Pro

duct

-s-

49T

imei

lne

,

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

-R

EP

OR

TIN

GD

R1.

Det

erm

ine

how

Stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

shou

ldD

eter

min

e re

port

ing

syst

em w

hich

Col

labo

rativ

e ef

fort

Rep

ort f

orm

at o

fIm

med

iate

resu

lts f

or s

tude

nts

be in

clud

ed in

all

aspe

cts

of th

ein

clud

e a

form

at f

or r

esul

ts o

n st

anda

rdof

per

sonn

el in

perf

orm

ance

res

ults

with

dis

abili

ties

will

be

incl

uded

in th

eas

sess

men

t com

pone

ntof

the

Tex

as a

ccou

nt-

abili

ty s

yste

m (

incl

ud-

Tex

as a

ccou

ntab

ility

sys

tem

,in

clud

ing

stat

e as

sess

men

ts.

Sena

te B

ill 1

req

uire

s th

at r

esul

tsfo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s m

ust

TA

AS,

TA

AS

with

mod

ific

atio

ns, a

ndal

tern

ativ

e as

sess

men

ts.

The

cur

rent

ly r

equi

red

repo

rtin

g of

exem

ptio

ns w

ill s

erve

as

a tr

ansi

tion

toth

e ne

w s

yste

m.

spec

ial e

duca

tion,

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t,ac

coun

tabi

lity,

polic

y, p

lann

ing,

and

rese

arch

, with

for

all T

exas

sch

ool

child

ren,

reg

ardl

ess

of ty

pe o

f as

sess

-m

ent,

beyo

ndin

form

atio

n on

the

ing

repo

rtin

g of

stud

ents

who

are

exem

pted

fro

mas

sess

men

ts)

and

in a

llpu

blis

hed

or u

npub

-lis

hed

repo

rts

ofre

sults

.

be r

epor

ted

by 1

998-

99. U

ntil

then

, dis

tric

ts c

ontin

ue to

rep

ort

only

the

num

bers

exe

mpt

ed.

fiel

d in

put

num

bers

of

stud

ents

exem

pted

fro

mte

stin

g

DR

2. P

hase

in a

By

repo

rtin

g re

sults

for

stu

dent

sR

esul

ts s

houl

d be

rep

orte

d in

the

Col

labo

rativ

e ef

fort

Rep

orts

that

incl

ude

In p

lace

by

requ

irem

ent t

o re

port

in th

e m

anne

r de

scri

bed,

afo

llow

ing

five

col

umns

:of

per

sonn

el in

a se

t of

resu

lts o

fA

ugus

t, 19

98re

sults

for

all

stud

ents

in d

istr

ict o

r st

ate

asse

ssm

ent/

acco

unt-

abili

ty r

epor

ts. R

esul

tssh

ould

be

repo

rted

for

all s

tude

nts

with

com

plet

e se

t of

data

will

be

avai

labl

e fo

r th

e de

cisi

on-m

akin

gpr

oces

s. D

iffe

rent

iatin

g st

uden

tsin

to d

isab

ility

cat

egor

ies

is n

otap

prop

riat

e, a

nd th

e sm

all

num

bers

of

stud

ents

in s

ome

(1)

resu

lts f

or a

ll st

uden

ts,

(2)

resu

lts f

or a

ll st

uden

ts e

xcep

tth

ose

with

dis

abili

ties,

(3)

resu

lts f

or s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

who

took

the

stan

dard

test

,(4

) re

sults

for

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s

spec

ial e

duca

tion,

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t,ac

coun

tabi

lity,

and

polic

y, p

lann

ing,

and

rese

arch

, with

fiel

d in

put

the

perf

orm

ance

of

all s

tude

nts,

and

that

pro

vide

diff

eren

tiate

din

form

atio

n fo

rst

uden

ts w

ho to

okdi

sabi

litie

s. S

tude

ntca

tego

ries

mea

ns th

at if

thei

rw

ho to

ok a

sta

ndar

dize

d m

odif

ied

test

s un

der

diff

erin

gre

sults

sho

uld

be c

oded

by c

ateg

ory,

but

res

ults

shou

ld n

ever

be

repo

rted

by

cate

gory

for

stat

e ac

coun

tabi

lity

repo

rts.

Reg

iona

l and

stat

e da

ta b

y di

sabi

lity

cate

gory

may

be

com

pile

d an

d ev

alu-

ated

for

pro

gram

and

rese

arch

pur

pose

s on

ly.

resu

lts a

re r

epor

ted,

con

fide

ntia

l-ity

is a

n is

sue.

vers

ion

of th

e st

anda

rd te

st, a

nd(5

) re

sults

for

stu

dent

s w

ith d

isab

ilitie

sw

ho to

ok a

n al

tern

ativ

e te

st.

Stud

ents

' res

ults

sho

uld

be c

oded

by

char

acte

rist

ics

so m

at r

esul

ts c

an b

ean

alyz

ed a

nd s

tate

wid

e nu

mbe

rs c

an b

ean

alyz

ed o

nly

for

rese

arch

pur

pose

s.

cond

ition

s

I 1

Max

im S

tude

nts

with

Dub

rnIu

In

Stat

oWde

Ass

essm

ent *

ad A

ccot

etta

bilit

y Sy

stem

s:A

Stu

dy o

f th

e Is

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N4i

,

,.&

,=

0"'

lii,

;.:fo

oicf

.nm

-,-,

cly

:'65-

4--,

,?,,,

.,,

rt,

DR

3. A

ssig

nre

spon

sibi

lity

for

repo

rtin

g sc

ores

toth

e st

uden

t's d

istr

ict

of r

esid

ence

and

hom

e ca

mpu

s.

The

re s

houl

d be

a c

onsi

sten

tsy

stem

of

repo

rtin

g re

sults

. Giv

enth

at m

any

stud

ents

atte

nd s

choo

lou

tsid

e th

eir

dist

rict

s, d

ebat

ear

ises

abo

ut w

ho s

houl

d re

port

.T

he f

ocus

gro

up th

ough

t it b

est t

oha

ve th

e di

stri

ct o

f re

side

nce

and

hom

e em

ir:,

repo

rt.

Dev

elop

a r

epor

ting

syst

em in

whi

ch a

llst

uden

ts w

ho a

re r

esid

ents

of

a di

stri

ct a

rein

clud

ed in

any

and

all

dist

rict

and

hom

eca

mpu

s re

port

s, r

egar

dles

s of

whe

re th

eyac

tual

ly a

ttend

sch

ool.

Col

labo

ratio

n of

TE

A p

erso

nnel

inst

uden

t'ass

ess-

men

t, ac

coun

tabi

l-ity

, and

spe

cial

educ

atio

n, w

ithfi

eld

inpu

t

Syst

em in

whi

chsc

hool

dis

tric

tsre

port

the

test

res

ults

for

all o

f th

ech

ildre

n of

par

ents

who

res

ide

in th

edi

stri

ct, i

nclu

ding

stud

ents

who

atte

ndsc

hool

in o

ther

setti

ngs

An

acco

unta

bilit

ysy

stem

in w

hich

ther

e is

res

pons

ibil-

ity f

or a

ll st

uden

ts

Imm

edia

tely

DR

4. R

epor

t bot

hab

solu

te s

core

s an

dch

ange

in p

erfo

r-m

ance

sco

res

for

all

stud

ents

.

The

re is

a n

eed

for

info

rmat

ion

abou

t bot

h ki

nds

of s

core

s.T

he e

xist

ing

Tex

as L

earn

ing

Inde

x is

a w

ayto

trac

k ch

ange

in p

erfo

rman

ce o

ver

time.

Rep

ort p

erfo

rman

ce r

esul

ts f

or s

tude

nts

with

disa

bilit

ies

with

in th

is in

dex,

Col

labo

rativ

eef

fort

am

ong

stud

ent a

sses

s-m

eat,

acco

unta

bil-

ity, a

nd s

peci

aled

ucat

ion

pers

on-

nel i

n T

EA

Rep

ortin

g sy

stem

that

incl

udes

com

para

ble

resu

ltsfo

r al

l stu

dent

s

Beg

inni

ng19

96-9

7

DR

S. P

hase

in L

requ

irem

ent t

o re

port

on th

e pr

ogre

ss o

f al

lst

uden

ts in

any

ratin

g or

rec

ogni

tion

syst

em s

et u

p fo

rca

mpu

ses

ordi

stri

cts,

54

A m

ajor

con

cern

has

bee

n th

atsc

hool

s do

not

wan

t to

repo

rtre

sults

of

the

perf

orm

ance

of

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

beca

use

it ha

s a

nega

tive

effe

ct o

n ra

tings

or r

ecog

nitio

n. R

atin

gs o

rre

cogn

ition

sho

uld

be c

ontin

gent

on r

epor

ts o

f th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

fal

l stu

dent

s.

Rev

iew

this

req

uire

men

t as

it re

late

s to

thq

inte

nt o

f Se

nate

Bill

1.

Phas

e in

this

req

uire

men

t. C

onsi

dera

ble

cons

ider

atio

n w

ill n

eed

to b

e gi

ven

to h

o v.

the

perf

orm

ance

of

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

-tie

s fi

ts in

to th

e cu

rren

t rat

ing

syst

em.

Col

labo

rativ

eef

fort

of

spec

ial

educ

atio

n, s

tude

ntas

sess

men

t,ac

coun

tabi

lity,

and

polic

y, p

lann

ing,

and

rese

arch

pers

onne

l at T

EA

with

fie

ld in

put

Cle

ar 'd

escr

iptio

ns o

fth

e re

sults

that

are

repo

rted

by

scho

oldi

stri

cts

and

the

stat

e

In p

lace

by

Aug

ust,

1998

56

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

in S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he is

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N

DR

6. D

evel

opT

o av

oid

mis

use

of th

e ne

wA

col

labo

rativ

e gr

oup

shou

ld b

e as

sign

edT

EA

per

sonn

el in

Cle

ar d

escr

iptio

ns o

fIn

pla

ce b

yde

scri

ptio

ns o

f th

esy

stem

, it i

s cr

itica

l to

prov

ide

all

the

job

of w

ritin

g a

desc

ript

ion

of th

eas

sess

men

t, ac

coun

t-th

e re

sults

that

are

Aug

ust,

1998

repo

rtin

g sy

stem

who

may

nee

d to

use

or

inte

rpre

tin

form

atio

n in

clud

ed in

the

repo

rts

of te

stab

ility

, and

spe

cial

repo

rted

by

scho

ol(s

peci

fied

in D

R2)

for

use

by th

em

edia

, par

ents

,an

d sc

hool

dis

tric

tpe

rson

nel.

the

info

rmat

ion

with

ver

ysp

ecif

ic d

escr

iptio

ns o

f th

ere

port

ing

syst

em.

resu

lts f

or lo

cal s

choo

l dis

tric

ts,

educ

atio

n, w

ith f

ield

inpu

tdi

stri

cts

and

the

stat

e

5b

Incl

udin

g St

uden

ts w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s in

Sta

tew

ide

Ass

essm

ent a

nd A

ccou

ntab

ility

Sys

tem

s: A

Stu

dy o

f the

Issu

es

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N'o

r4$

4.04

,`

t4

'''I

V,

2

.X

T^

Rat

Iâfla

Ie4

;'

4,m

...,

'..

App

roac

hv

t3

':,Z

.:

10,

,,r,

'..

'

,.

Tin

ielin

e

DE

VE

LOP

ME

NT

-T

RA

ININ

GD

T1.

Pro

vide

As

new

or

revi

sed

guid

elin

es a

reE

SC p

erso

nnel

cou

ld d

evel

op tr

aini

ngE

duca

tion

Serv

ice

Tra

inin

g m

odul

es:

Beg

in d

evel

op-

trai

ning

or

cont

inui

ngde

velo

ped,

it is

impo

rtan

t to

mod

ules

on:

Cen

ters

(or

one

ESC

part

icip

atio

nm

ent i

mm

edi-

educ

atio

n to

AR

Dpr

ovid

e th

e tr

aini

ng n

eces

sary

toa)

mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out p

artic

ipa-

usin

g di

stan

ceac

com

mod

a-at

ely

and

com

mitt

ee m

embe

rs,

incl

udin

g pa

rent

s, in

impl

emen

t the

m. A

RD

com

mit-

tee

mem

bers

nee

d ad

ditio

nal

tion

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

in a

sses

smen

tsle

arni

ng c

apab

ilitie

s to

prov

ide

stat

ewid

etio

nas

sess

men

tco

mpl

ete

duri

ng th

em

akin

g de

cisi

ors

trai

ning

if th

ey a

re to

mak

e th

ese

b) m

akin

g ap

prop

riat

e ac

com

mod

a-tr

aini

ng)

in c

olla

bora

-op

tions

1996

to 1

998

abou

t par

ticip

atio

n of

stud

ents

with

disa

bilit

ies

inas

sess

men

ts, a

ppro

-pr

iate

acc

omm

oda-

tions

, and

ass

essm

ent

optio

ns.

deci

sion

s.tio

ns, a

ndc)

sel

ectin

g ap

prop

riat

e as

sess

men

top

tions

.A

n im

port

ant c

ompo

nent

sho

uld

be th

atth

e pu

rpos

e of

acc

omm

odat

ions

is n

otto

pro

vide

an

adva

ntag

e, b

ut to

ena

ble

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

to d

emon

-st

rate

thei

r sk

ills.

tion

with

TE

A s

taff

acad

emic

yea

rs

DT

2. P

rovi

deA

s ne

w d

ata

are

prod

uced

that

ESC

per

sonn

el d

evel

op tr

aini

ng m

odul

es :

Edu

catio

n Se

rvic

eT

rain

ing

mod

ules

:B

egin

dev

elop

-tr

aini

ng o

n da

tare

port

ing,

ana

lysi

s,an

d in

terp

reta

tion

for

incl

ude

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties,

it w

ill b

e im

port

ant t

hat c

ampu

ses

and

dist

rict

s un

ders

tand

wha

t is

repo

rted

, pos

sibi

litie

s fo

r an

alys

is,

and

how

the

data

can

be

inte

r-

data

rep

ortin

gan

alys

isin

terp

reta

tion

use

of d

ata

for

cam

pus/

dist

rict

impr

ovem

ent p

lann

ing.

Cen

ters

, (or

one

ESC

usin

g di

stan

cele

arni

ng c

apab

ilitie

s,to

pro

vide

sta

tew

ide

trai

ning

) in

col

labo

ra-

data

rep

ortin

gan

alys

isin

terp

reta

tion

use

of d

ata

for

cam

pus/

dist

rict

men

t dur

ing

1996

and

com

plet

edu

ring

the

1996

to 1

998

pret

ed to

con

trib

ute

to th

eir

plan

sfo

r im

prov

emen

ts.

tion

with

TE

A s

taff

impr

ovem

ent

plan

ning

acad

emic

yea

rs

t."r.;

Li

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

In S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N

60

RE

SOU

RC

E C

ON

TA

CT

S FO

R R

EC

OM

ME

ND

ED

AC

TIO

N P

LA

N

NE

TW

OR

KIN

G -

Str

ateg

y 2

Mic

higa

n St

ate

Uni

vers

ity -

Dr.

Sus

an P

hilli

ps

NE

TW

OR

KIN

G -

Str

ateg

y 3

OSE

P -

Dav

id M

alou

fO

ER

I -

Dav

id S

wee

t

NE

TW

OR

KIN

G -

Str

ateg

y 4

NC

ES

-Sh

arif

Sha

kran

iJi

m H

ouse

rN

AG

B -

Ray

Fie

lds

NE

TW

OR

KIN

G -

Str

ateg

y 5

CC

SSO

- E

d R

oebe

rN

CE

O -

Jim

Yss

eldy

ke

RE

SEA

RC

H -

Str

ateg

y 1

NA

EP

-G

eorg

e B

ohm

sted

t

DE

VE

LO

PME

NT

- A

sses

smen

t - S

trat

egy

2N

AE

P -

Bob

Lin

n, U

nive

rsity

of

Col

orad

oN

CE

O -

Kev

in M

cGre

w -

Uni

vers

ity o

f M

inne

sota

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

in S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

RE

CO

MM

EN

DE

D A

CT

ION

PLA

N-

TIM

ELI

NE

S, -

.199

9466

0"

''''

'7' -

,'?k

i,:

.

,

NE

TW

OR

KIN

G'T

rack

oth

er s

tate

s' g

uide

lines

for

part

icip

atio

n, a

ccom

mod

atio

n, r

epor

ting

'Tra

ck le

gal c

ases

reg

ardi

ng p

artic

ipat

ion

and

acco

mm

odat

ions

Tra

ck o

ngoi

ng s

tate

/fede

ral r

esea

rch

rega

rdin

g pa

rtic

ipat

ion,

acc

omm

odat

ions

, rep

ortin

gT

rack

dev

elop

men

t/mod

ifica

tions

of n

atio

nal g

uide

lines

foi p

artic

ipat

ion

and

acco

mm

odat

ions

*Mai

ntai

n lin

ks w

ith o

ther

sta

tes

to a

ddre

ss a

sses

smen

t iss

ues

SE

A

s.

,

woo

iilai

itiO

lde

AiM

iiii

:

,ow

:un

A r

iefa

tinie

ttiiii

rtoe

S: i

thrit

ialii

i upd

ate

,D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

PO

LIC

Y

RE

PO

RT

ING

TR

AIN

ING

r' ,,

.

Do.

it`O

aditi

lin K

ite1o

t sØ

,ii:,,

,=

,.,,,,

Ban

chM

erkt

yste

m::-

And

ertid

stiA

li..

,,,,

J4,:

oath

ire'to

:CO

riaf

tif,e

, JI,h

Ata

hhilf

tlia;

cItif

ing*

Ski

hi; r

iaW

tett

deve

loP

men

t:.6

1),

....o

,V

ie in

purf

ittlit

it, r

o!o

rao

tion

rs

Dev

elop

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g gu

idel

ines

for

appr

opria

teas

sess

men

t opt

ions

Con

tinue

to m

onito

r ad

here

nce

to g

uide

lines

>- --

IiR

evie

w e

xist

ing

Tex

as a

ccom

mod

atio

n gu

idel

ines

>C

ontin

ue to

mod

ify a

nd tr

ack

adhe

renc

e

,,D

iger

min

e tio

w 'f

i4ul

ts to

lif')

isP

harie

-irirb

OO

rtin

g re

quire

men

t. R

efin

e re

port

inD

esig

hrep

Oin

g tty

stom

ICon

tiiitt

e re

riort

irtg

fp h

ome

cam

pus/

dist

rict

to a

ssig

n rO

SP

Ort

altA

itlea

- ',

MO

O iM

itolu

te:a

hd C

hang

e in

per

form

ance

sco

res

to h

ome

*Out

/dia

l.-

;*P

hase

la fe

quire

men

t for

rep

ortin

g w

ithin

rat

ing/

reco

gniti

on s

yste

m.

)ia

*Dev

elop

trai

ning

for

part

icip

a-tio

n, a

ccom

mod

atio

ns,

asse

ssm

ent o

ptio

ns'D

evel

op tr

aini

ng o

n da

ta6

tr';

repo

rtin

g, a

naly

Sis

, Int

erpr

ete-

&io

nP

rovi

de o

ngoi

ng tr

aini

no to

pra

ctiti

oner

s an

d pa

rent

s)4

.>

-"B

y D

ecem

ber

1996

, Com

mis

sion

er m

ust d

evel

op a

nd p

ropo

se a

sses

smen

t sys

tem

for

eval

uatin

g th

e pr

ogre

ss o

f exe

mpt

ed s

tude

nts

"By

1998

-99,

per

form

ance

of t

hose

stu

dent

s m

ust b

e in

clud

ed in

AE

IS, S

choo

l Rep

ort C

ard,

Per

form

ance

Rep

ort

(Sen

ate

Bill

1, S

ectio

n 39

.027

, May

, 199

51

Incl

udin

g S

tude

nts

with

Dis

abili

ties

in S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

ms:

A S

tudy

of t

he Is

sues

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accoumability Systems: A Study of the Issues

SUMMARY ANDIMPLICATIONS OF THERECOMMENDEDACTION PLAN

It is recognized many of the recommended strate-gies and approaches in the action plan will requiresignificant investments. To develop an alternative

assessment and to consult with other states alreadyworking on the issues that Texas must address will bevery time intensive. Funds will be needed to conductresearch, and personnel time will be required to over-see activities at the state level and at the district level.Additional resources (consultants, scoring assistance,time, etc.) will have to be considered as well.

Required Resources

Networking. Most of the networking strategies callfor tracking of the activities of others and keeping up-to-date on developments in the statewide assessmentof students. It would be necessary for TEA to assignspecific employees to regularly track designated activi-ties and developments, and obtain copies of technicalreports and other products from the centers and agen-cies listed. Collaborating with other states will requireboth personnel time and some investment in collabora-tive efforts (e.g., membership in SCASS). At this time,Texas has applied for membership in the SCASS.

Research. Research strategies included in the actionplan would involve commitment of fiscal resources andpersonnel. The first activity calls for a study of stu-dents exempted from TAAS during the spring 1996administration. If personnel in the various regions wereto be used to coordinate the assessment of the students,costs could be minimized. The second a search strat-egy, an annual study of the unintended consequencesof assessment systems, would require formation of agroup and some member of the group conducting anannual survey, as well as costs for materials, postage,and additional analyses.

aeyekpmeni. The development strategies call largelyfor the development of an alternative assessment sys-tem that includes policies, guidelines, and training. Itis anticipated that development of the guidelines wouldneed to be an agency-wide collaborative effort andwould need to include a system to monitor implemen-tation. While this is clearly the most costly develop-ment strategy, this has been done by other states, and it

38

will be worth investigating piggy-backing on their ef-forts, or working collaboratively with other states onthe development.

Training will also require some initial and continuedinvestment. Without training on decision guidelinesand policies, it is anticipated that districts and homecampuses will continue to struggle with implementa-tion of assessment practices. With such guidelines andthe training necessary to implement them, it is antici-pated that significant advances could be made in thesuctessfv1 implementation of assessment systems inwhich all students participate.

Return on Investment

Return on investment is not necessarily best rep-resented by a breakdown of the benefit of eachtype of strategy. The most important return, of

course, is that systematically implementing the recom-mended action plan will meet the mandate of the TexasEducation Code (Senate Bill 1, Section 39.027). Byimplication, it will make the Texas accountability sys-tem one that includes students with disabilities in per-formance measures as well as in the education processmeasures of attendance and dropout rates.

Networking. The benefit of tracking exercises is thatTEA personnel would be able to stay aware of and profitfrom activities in other states and agencies. The ben-efit to Texas is significant. TEA personnel would profitfrom collaborative problem solving with other stateeducation agencies. The cost of unilateral problem solv-ing would be avoided, and Texas would profit fromaccess to the results of studies carried out in other states.

Research. Proposed research activities are benefi-cial because they feed directly into decisions that Texasneeds to make about its assessment and accountabilitysystems.

Development. It is in the development activities(based on networking and research) that the major re-turn on investment is evident. First and foremost, the

development of an alternative assessment system meetsthe intent of Senate Bill I. Furthermore, policy, re-porting, and training strategies ensure the successfulimplementation of the revised accountability system.

6 4

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Additional Determinations

The 74th legislature shifted the focus of the Texaspublic school system from a concentration onmandates to reliance on knowledge, planning,

and accountability (Draft Long-Range Plan for PublicEducation,1996-2000, State Board of Education, Sep-tember, 1995). One of the requirements of the newSenate Bill 1 (Section 39.027c) states that the perfor-mance of students who are currently exempt from stateassessments must not only be measured under an as-sessment system, but also must be "included in the aca-demic excellence indicator system (Section 39.051),the campus report card (Section 39.052), and the per-formance report (Section 39.053)" of th -... accountabil-ity system.

Since data for students with disabilities are includedin a limited manner for the AEIS, the School ReportCard and the Perfonnance Report, interpretation willneed to be made as to what additional data are to beincluded in these reports and how these results are tobe used. Determination will need to be made regard-ing the intent of the Senate Bill 1 requirements in Sec-tion 39.027c as to the following:

1. What additional data for students with disabilitiesare to be included in the AEIS, the School ReportCard, and the Performance Report that are not cur-rently included as part of the reporting system?

2. How are assessment results for students with dis-abilities to be reported?

For those students who take the standard TAAS,will results be aggregated into the current non-special education student report?

For those students who take the TAAS withmodifications, will results be aggregated orreported separately?For those students who take alternative assess-ments, will those data appear as a separatereport?

3. How are the assessment results for students withdisabilities to be used in the accountability report-ing system?

If the perfonnance results are to be includedin AEIS, is that to be done as a separate re-port as it is now or only as profile infomm-don?Are the performance results intended to beused along with the results of non-specialeducation students within the AEIS as thebasis for accountability ratings andrewards?

As Texas continues to focus on public school excel-lence, equity, and efficiency through greater account-ability, educational results for students with disabili-ties will also be part of the system. There is now anunprecedented opportunity to integrate current refonnefforts with the development of new options. Includ-ing students with disabilities in statewide assessmentand accountability systems should ensure the successand progress of all students served by the publicschool system in Texas.

39

I ITS

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 1

Sources of Information for Focus Group

Initial ResourcesWhen the focus group started its efforts, it began with a set of information, including a briefing paper,that was drawn from several previous efforts to identify some of the national issues related to theparticipation of students with disabilities in assessment, accountability, and testing systems. Thesesources included:

Results of the annual surveys (1991 - 1994) of state accountability practices forstudents with disabilities conducted by NCEO.

Results of a working session (Chicago, September, 1992) on barriers to putting newaccountability practices in place, sponsored by NCEO and the National Associationof State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and attended by state assessmentdirectors and state directors of special education.

Papers on alternative ways to make decisions about participation and accommodation,written by experts in assessment and special education, and commissioned by NCEO.

Results of a NASDSE Forum working session (August, 1994) on alternative account-ability practices.

Results of a working session (Washington, DC, March, 1994) of NCEO and theNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES) on increasing the participation ofstudents with disabilities in large-scale national assessments.

Results of a working session (Tyson's Corner, May, 1994) of NCEO and state assess-ment personnel, sponsored by NCEO and the Council for Exceptional Children(CEC), on developing guidelines for inclusion of students with disabilities in state-wide assessments.

Contents of the NCEO "Setting State Assessment Guidelines for Students withDisabilities: A Study Guide."

Proceedings of a NASDSE working session (Salt Lake City, February, 1995) on aconceptual model for state accountability systems.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Related DocumentsAs appropriate, documents related to current national and state reform efforts were provided to focusgroup members during the course of the project. These included:

"Struggling for Standards," Education Week Special Report, April, 1995.A user's guide to the national education standards movement, including the activities of 50states.

"Outcomes: Watch Your Language" (Ysseldyke and Thurlow, 1994). A clarification of waysin which the word "outcomes" is used and why we must be careful in using appropriate terms.

"Special Education Testing Study Inconclusive," Education Daily, June, 1995. A review offederal exclusion study in New York and the concern for determination of participation ratesfor students with disabilities in state assessments.

"Don't Test, Don't Tell," (Zlatos, November 1994). The American School Board Journal. Adescription of "academic redshirting" to define exclusion of students with disabilities fromstate assessments.

"Surveying the Landscape of State Education Assessment Programs," Council for Educa-tional Development and Research. Includes profiles of state assessment.

"High School Graduation Requirements: What's Happening for Students with Disabilities?"(Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Anderson; May, 1995). NCEO. Analysis of range of graduation require-ments across all states.

"A Compilation of States' Guidelines for Accommodations in Assessments for Students withDisabilities." (Thurlow, Scott, and Ysseldyke; March, 1995). NCEO. Listing of 38 states'guidelines on accommodations, modifications, and adaptations of assessments for studentswith disabilities.

WQrking Reference MaterialsResource documents directly related to the Texas assessment and accountability systems wereprovided for use by the focus group as reference material for the work of the project. Those in-cluded:

Accountability ManualGlossary of AEIS

. Usting Appropriate Students Texas Education CodeTAAS Coordinator's Manual: Modifications for TAAS and End-of -Course ExamsExcessive Exemptions Study (TEA)Proposed TEC Revisions/74th Texas Legislature/May 1995Alternative Assessment of Students with Languages Other Than EnglishTAAS and End-of-Course Objectives/All Grades TestedTAAS Specificationsa) 3rd Grade Readingb) Exit Level Reading, Writing, MathSenate Bill 1

6

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 2

ADAAmericans with Disabilities Act

AEIS

e to Acron

OERIOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

OSEPAcademic Excellence Indicator System Office of Special Education Programs

ARDAdmissions, Review and Dismissal

PEIMSPublic Education Information ManagementSystem

CCSSOCouncil of Chief State School Officers RBM

Results-Based MonitoringCECCouncil for Exceptional Children

IDEAIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act

SCASSState Collaborative on Assessment and StudentS tandards

TAASIEP Texas Assessment of Academic SkillsIndividual Education Program

TABSLEP Texas Assessment of Basic SkillsLimited English Proficient

TEANAEP Texas Education AgencyNational Assessment of Educational Progress

TEAMSNASDSE Texas Educational Assessment of MinimumNational Association of State Directors of SkillsSpecial Education

TSSASNCEO Texas Successful Schools Award SystemNational Center on Educational Outcomes

NCES

National Center for Education Statistics

6 .1to

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 3

Glossary of Terms

Absolute Score an actual test score, which is always an estimate, based on sampling of behaviors or skills,of what the test taker knows or can do

Accommodation (other terms: adaptation, modification) an alteration in the way that a test is presentedto or responded to by the person tested; includes a variety of alterations in presentation format,response format, setting in which the test is taken, timing or scheduling, as well as other possiblechanges (such as assessment in a different level from the standard)

Accountability a systematic method to assure that thoSe inside and outside of the educational system thatschools are moving in desired directions; commonly included elements are goals, indicators ofsuccess toward meeting those goals, analysis of data, reporting procedures, and consequences orsanctions

Accountability Rating a four point scale used to describe the performance of a campus in the Texasaccountability system based on TAAS performance, dropout rate, and attendance; the four ratingsare exemplary, recognized, acceptable, and low-performing. Schools earning either of the first tworatings are eligible for the Texas successful Schools Award System (TSSAS). Acceptable schoolsmay be eligible for awards if they showed significant gains

Accreditation Status a four point scale used to describe the performance of a district in the Texas ac-countability system based on TAAS performance, dropout rate, and attendance rate; ratings areexemplary, recognized, accredited, and accredited, warned (campuses in districts with this last rat-ing cannot receive a TSSAS award)

Adaptation (other tenns: accommodation, modification) an alteration in the way that a test is presented to,or responded to by, the person tested; includes a variety of alterations in presentation format, re-sponse format, setting in which the test is taken, timing or scheduling, as well as other possiblechanges (such as assessment in a different level from the standard)

Alternative (Alternate) Assessment an assessment that is different from one typically used; a differ-ent form of a test

ARD Committee in Texas, a term for the Admissions, Review, and Dismissal Committee, which performsfunctions similar to those of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) team; in Texas, this teamdetermines whether a student participates in the TAAS, and what modifications the student may useduring assessment

Assessment the process of collecting data for the purpose of making decisions; in Texas this term usuallyrefers to testing

Attendance the total number of days students were present during the school year divided by the totalnumber of days students were in membership during the same school year

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Change Score (other tenn: difference score) represents the difference between two scores; term impliesthat the difference represents a true change in performance; technically, additional considerationsmust be made to evaluate the "significance" of a difference, including the reliability of the differ-ence, the rarity of the difference, and the psychological meaningfulness of the difference

Criterion Referenced Test test that measures a person's development of particular skills in terms ofabsolute levels of mastery

Dropout Rate for the Texas accountability system, the dropout rate is the number of dropouts summedacross all grades, 7 through 12, divided by the number of students summed across all grades, 7through 12. A dropout is defined as a student who is absent from the public school in which thestudent is enrolled for a period of 30 or more consecutive days, who does not hold a high schooldiploma or the equivalent, and whose attendance within that period at another public school or aprivate or parochial school cannot be evidenced

Exclusion from Testing the act of barring someone from participation in an assessment program

Exemption from Testing the act of releasing someone from a requirement to which others are held

Exit Exam a test that must be taken and passed in order for a student to successfully leave some part ofschooling, such as middle school (middle hool exit exam); this term most often is used to refer toa high school graduation exam

Graduation Exam a test that must be taken and passed in order for a student to earn a high school diploma

High Stakes Testing assessment that has significant consequences for an individual or school system;for example, a high school graduation exam that is used to determine whether a student receives adiploma is a high stakes test for the student, whereas a benchmark exam that determines whetheraschool receives a financial reward is a high stakes test for the school

Large Scale Assessment assessment of groups undertaken to describe a district, state, or nation

Minimum Competency Test a test designed to determine whether a student has successfully masteredskills assumed to be the minimum possible to be considered as having gained necessary skills andknowledge in school

Modification (other terms: accommodation, modification) an alteration in the way that a test is presentedto or responded to by the person tested; includes a variety of alterations in presentation format,response format, setting in which the test is taken, timing or scheduling, as well as other possiblechanges (such as assessment in a different level from the standard)

Norm Referenced Test test that compares an individual's performance to that of his or her peers; thesetests are designed to discriminate among the performances of a number of individuals and to inter-pret how one person's performance compares to that of other individuals with similar characteris-tics

Performance Assessment an exam that requires the student to create an answer or a product ratherthan simply filling in a blank or select a correct answer from a list; the task performed by thestudent is intended to be authentic

Including Studetus with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Portfolio Assessment a type of performance assessment that uses a file or folder to contain collec-tions of a student's work; the products typically depict the range of skills the student has or theimprovement in a student's skill(s) over time

Promotion Exam a test used to determine that a student has successfully mastered material to move tothe next level of education

Reliability the extent to which the same score is expected when (a) a student is measured at two differenttimes, (b) two different samples of items are used, or (c) two different scorers judge performance

Standardized Test test for which scores have been transformed so that the mean and standard devia-tion take predetermined values

Technical Adequacy the goodness of certain characteristics of a test considered to be important,including standardization sample, reliability, and validity

Test Bias the tendency of a test to not measure what it is said to measure because of systematic influ-ences from inappropriate sources, such as ethnic background, gender, and disability

Texas Assessment of Academic Skills a criterion-referenced test that measures student achieve-ment in reading and mathematics at grades 3 through 9 and 10, and writing at grades 4, 8, and 10.The tests are given in the spring of each year

Texas Successful Schools Award System incentive system to reward schools that exhibit highperformance or the greatest progress in achieving state educational goals; in 1994, $5 million inawards were shared by nearly one thousand schools

Validity the extent to which a test measures what it is said to measure; there are several types of validity(content, construct, criterion), depending on the procedure used to demonstrate what the testmeasures

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 4

Resources

This bibliography provides information on sources cited in this paper, as well as onother sources that are relevant to the topic of including students with disabilities in

statewide assessment and accountability systems.

Allington, R.L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York.Educational Policy. 6, (4), 397-414.

This article reports a significant increase in retention and identification of students for specialeducation servicesduring a period of increased high-stakes assessment from 1978 to 1989.

Bell, G. (1994). The test of testing: Making ap,popriate and ethical choices in assessment. Oak Brook, IL:North Central Regional Educational Laboratory,.

This document addresses a myriad of topics related to choices that need to be made in relation to testing. Inaddition to general ethical assessment responsibilities, it addresses the selection and development of testingprograms, preparing students for an assessment, administering the test, and interpretation anduse of test results.Several issues are addressed in each of these areas.

Brauen, M., O'Reilly, F., & Moore, M. (1994). Wiles and options in outcomes-based accountability forstudents with disabilities. Rockville, MD: WESTAT.

This document provides a framework for creating an outcomes-based accountability system that includes studentswith disabilities. It addresses issues and options for four decisions: (1) selecting outcomes, (2) establishingperformance standards, (3) identifying assessment strategies, and (4) identifying accountable parties.

Briand, X. (199S, May 8). "National survey shows states exclude disabled from tests." Fducafion Daily, la(88), 1, 3.

This article describes the results of a survey of state directors of special education in 37 states. In this description,Texas is reported to include 42 percent of its students with disabilities in the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills(TAAS).

Clark, C. (1992). Accountability systems: A review of the literature. Texas Center for Educational Re-search. (This paper also appears as Chapter II in Volume II of A new accountability system for Texac publicfighailla by the Educational Economic Policy Center, State of Texas.)

This repott includes definitions of accountability and information on designing an accountability system.

Houser, J. (1994). Assessing students with disabilities and limited English proficiency (Working Paper 95-13). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

This paper presents a summary of issues that have been addressed related to the inclusion of students with disabili-ties and students with limited English proficiency in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP.Major topics include: data validity and current policy; current status; data validity and alternative assessment; andnext steps.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountabiliry Systems: A Study of the Issues

disahthfirliazatiallalgaagighsfigungainu. (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: National Center onEducational Outcomes.

This document presents an analysis of the degree to which individuals with disabilities are involved in national and statedata collection programs. Recommendations for increasing the participation of individuals with disabilities are provided.

McGrew, K.S., Thurlow, M.L., & Spiegel, A.N. (1993). The exclusion of students with disabilities in national datacollection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 15, 339-352.

This article reports on the extent to which students with disabilities are excluded from our national data collectionprograms. Included are data collection programs in the Department of Education, Department of Health and HumanServices, Department of Commerce, and the National Science Foundation.

National Academy of Education. (1993). The trial state assessment: Prospects and realities (Third Report of theNational Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP Trial State Assessment: 1992 Trial StateAssessment). Stanford, CA: American Institutes for Research.

This document provides a comprehensive analysis of the state level administration and reporting of NAEP. Among thetopics covered are the exclusion of students on Individualized Education Programs, including charts showing the rates ofinclusion and exclusion by state.

NCEO. (1993). State special education outcomes 1991 Minneapolis, MN: National Center on EducationalOutcomes.

This is an annual state report prepared by the National Center on Educational Outcomes. It reports on state activities inassessing the results of education for students with disabilities.

NCEO. (1995). State special education outcomes 1994. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on EducationalOutcomes.

This is one of the annual state reports prepared by the National Center on Educational Outcomes. It focuses on stateactivities in assessing the results of education for students with disabilities, as well as including a special report on thestatus of students with disabilities in relation to Goals 2000 activities.

North Central Regional Education il Laboratory. (1994). State student assessment programs database 1993-1994.Oak Brook, IL: NCREL.

This document presents the results of a survey of state assessment personnel that is conducted annually. It providesinformation on content areas covered, grade levels assessed, types of assessments, and so on for many additionalvariables.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions, Washington,DC: US. Government Printing Office.

This document examines technological and institutional aspects of educational testing. It provides a broad view of arange of issues related to testing and accountability.

Phillips, S.E. (1994). 11 I i A I 14. (Regional PolicyInformation Center Report). Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

This report was written to "hclp state and national education policymakers avoid legal challenges to their studentassessment programs." It does so by explaining the relevant legal and psychometric issues.

Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). Compilation of states' guidelines for including students

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

disabiligrajamsessinents (Synthesis Report 17). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.

This report compiles the written laws, regulations, and guidelines that states haveon the participation of students withdisabilities in statewide assessments and includes a summary of the major themes and trends.

Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). Compilation of states' guidelines for accommodations illassessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 18). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educa.:tional Outcomes.

This report compiles the written laws, regulations, and guidelines that states have about theuse of accommodations instatewide assessments. It includes a summary of the major themes and trends in the written accommodations guidelines.

Thurlow, M.L., Shriner, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1994). stilikatrzlikdisakilithatiagasgatraLazdusafignaireform based on statewide educational assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans.

This is a paper that was presented at AERA to summarize the status of statewide assessments in terms of the participationof students with disabilities, the accommodations that are allowed, and the nature of written guidelines.Ysseldyke, J.E., Christenson, S.L., & Thurlow, M.L. (1993). Student learning in context model projest (FinalReport). Minneapolis, MN: Department of Educational Psychology.

This final report of a federally funded project describes a model intervention to support all students with disabilities ingeneral education classrooms. It addresses the difficulties in bringing about change in schools, and in generatingresponsibility for students with disabilities among all educators.

Ysseldyke, J.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (1994). Guidelines for inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scalegssesamtall (Policy Directions No. 1). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.

This policy report explains ways to include students with disabilities in large-scaleassessments, use possible accommo-dations and adaptations, and monitor how well the intent of the guidelines is followed. Included are recommendationsand a list of resources.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., & Anderson, C.L. (1995). j-ligh school graduation requirements: What's happen-ing for students with disabilities? (Synthesis Report 20). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on EducationalOutcomes.

This report summarizes and analyzes current state graduation requirements and how they are applied to students withdisabilities. Variability from one state to another is demonstrated.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., & Geenen, K. (1994). Implementing of alternative methods for making educa-tional accountability decisions for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 12). Minneapolis, MN: NationalCenter on Educational Outcomes.

This report on a seminar of state special education directors and state assessment coordinators from six states examinesthe challenges of collecting data to make accountability decisions for students with disabilities. Recommendations forfuture practice are provided.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., & Shriner, J.G. (1994). $tudents with disabilities and educational standards:RicommendationsismulifaandSLIELLER (NCEO Policy Directions 2). Minneapolis, MN: National CenteronEducational Outcomes.

Four kinds of standards are explained in this report along with the merits and limitations for threealternative perspec-tives on setting standards and the issues educators face when setting appropriate standar& for all students. Also includedare recommendations for policy and practice for both content standards and performance standards.

Including Studous with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

ZIatos, B. (1994). Don't test, don't tell. The American School Board JournaL I SI (11), 24-33.

This article describes the "academic red-shirting" phenomenon, suggesting that this and similar practices skews the waywe rank our schools. It is suggested that some schools succumb to a temptation to make their scores look artificiallygood, resulting in children being left out of tests.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 5

crosswalk of Issues and Action Pion Strateglei

IssueN1 N2 N3 N4 NS R I R 2

Action Plan StrateeyDR2

DR DR3 4

DR DR DTS 6 1

DT2

D D DAl A2 A3

DP DPI 2

DR1

ParticipationAIMIXP1P2tamsP1P213P4PSP6P7PS

AccommodationA 1A2A3 e

A4ASA 6A7ReportingACMR1R 2R3 e

R4RSAmuR 1R 2

ImplementationIl121314

4

IS

Mcluding Studious with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 6

*ME's' istimates Of the percentages of Stwients with DisabpitieiP4'0440119 in StateWide Assessments' of Academic Achievement

< 10

Percent

10 - 24

Percent

25 - 49

Percent

50 - 74

Percent

75 - 90

Percent

> 90

Percent

Colorado Kansas California Delaware Indiana KentuckyFlorida Palau Connecticut Massachusetts Maine MarylandGeorgia Hawaii New Jersey North CarolinaLouisiana Idaho New York American SamoaMichigan Illinois Rhode Island

Minnesota Iowa South CarolinaMissouri Oregon South DakotaNew Mexico Tennessee

North Dakota Texas

Washington District of

Wisconsin Columbia

Guam CNMI

Puerto Rico

Including Studerus with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 7

States. Self4leported Decision Rules for the Participation ofStudents with Disabilities in Statewide Assessments

STATE /AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoDlinois

IndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew Jersey

7 9

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

STATENew Mexico

New YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPesussyhaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsin

WyomingAm SamoaMADC

GuamCNMIRMIPalau

_

Puerto RicoUSVI

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

EXHIBIT 8.. . .

tatett *Of-fletioxiecl*cointn0OtIOns AllowedIn SOiewidei AsSessillenfi -;

0' 1-44 42 w tif e 7 cr alr * .7 cr cf 4 47

STATE Accommodation Type Alternate Presentation Alternate ResponseAlabama V se 1 1 V i 1 1 IAlaska 1 / / / / .,Arizona v V 1 ./ v / / ./ 1 / / # /IArkansas vs, / / I V ie / / I / 4/California / / ./Colorado V V /Connecticut ., V / / et 1 1 / I I .,Delaware V / / /Florida vie se 1 v / / ./1 / / 1 4/Georgia / V / / / / / / se / v I VHawaii 1/ / // /11././ /1/1Idaho / ., / etIllinois v v / 1 / / / / / / / /Indiana / se V / / 1 / / /IowaKansas V I V / et 1 / / / iKentucky / / V / si /ill 11.,/Louisiana v v V / v of /1.1 / / v se /Maine / / se / V i V 1 / I v / /Maryland / V / / V ./ / i 1 1 i 1 1Massachusetts / / V l /1/1 / i i /Michitan 1 / V / / / 1MinnesotaMississippi i / V / I / / 1 / / /Miesmerl te 1 V / / /MontanaNebraskaNevada 1 / / / / / e e / /New Hampshire I V i i / /New Jersey I i V I / ellse or / /

SBEST COPY AVAIIABLE

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

STATENew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode blandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirninlaWisconsinWyomingAnt Selma

Guant

iv.se 1 / se se se se

se se se / 1

If /

se se se

/ 1 /1 le se

se se

11 / se se

CNIMI

RMIPalau / se

Puerto RicaUSVI

1 se se

0

APPENDICES

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Appendix A

Introduction

:k?54 4:> :% ` :.

Region IV Education Service Center (ESC) re-ceived a six-month grant from the Texas Edu-cation Agency in April 1995 to facilitate the

development of :

a) a critical issues document leading to the inclu-*sion of students with disabilities in the statewideassessment and accountability system, andb) a recommended action plan for the Texas Edu-cation Agency.

The issues were studied by a representative statewidegroup of stakeholders who had an interest in examin-ing educational results for all students. The plan wasdeveloped in relation to the identified issues, and withinthe context of current educational reform in Texas.

Goals/Objectives

/n order to ensure that all issues critical to inclusionof students with disabilities were considered, thefollowing major goals and objectives for the project

were outlined:

Goal I: To establish a network of supportamong statewide stakeholders in the identifi-cation of critical assessment issues.

Objective 1: To secure the active participa-tion of a representative statewide sample ofstakeholders in the development of critical is-sues.

Objective 2: To ensure input representativeof the needs of students with all types of dis-abilities, as well as be reflective of the diversecharacteristics of the state of Texas.

Goal II: To develop recommendations for theimplementation of an inclusive accountability sys-tem for Texas.

ion

Objective 1: To collaboratively work withboth the Texas Education Agency and thestakeholder group to address current issuesand recommended guidelines for:

participation (exclusion versus inclusion)accommodations and adaptationsreporting resultsincentives for including students withdisabilitiesidentification and reduction of barriers

Objective 2: To develop a working docu-ment for dissemination which outlines a rec-ommended action plan for the state to ap-proach the identified issues.

Methods/Activities

The Region IV ESC staff utilized a facilita-tion approach to the proposed project. Dr.James Ysseldyke and Dr. Martha Thurlow of

the National Center on Educational Outcomes forStudents with Disabilities (NCEO) at the Universityof Minnesota agreed to a formal collaborative effortwith this project. The Region IV ESC staff, consist-ing of representatives of both general and special edu-cation, served as facilitators of the project. Continu-ing collaboration with the Texas Education Agencystaff was critical as the Region IV ESC staff under-took the project activities for each identified goal andresulting objectives:

Goal I: Establish support network of statewide'stakeholders

Objective 1: Secure representative state-wide sample of stakeholders.

Activities:l.a. All potential stakeholders groups statewidewere contacted indicating the purpose of the pro-posed project focus group to be selected, goals/objectives/activities to be accomplished, time

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

commitment required, and timelines to be met. Ad-vocacy groups, professional organizations, andother appropriate parties were asked to nominateindividuals who could best articulate their perspec-tive as representative stakeholders for the projectfocus group.

Each representative was selected to participate,and was required to have regular communicationwith their organization/constituency to communi-cate the process of the project focus group as thework progressed.

Organizations invited to nominate representativesfor the project focus group included:

Texas Council of Administrators of SpecialEducation

Texas Association for Learning DisabilitiesTexas Council for Exceptional ChildrenTexas Education Agency - Divisions for Account-

ability and Special Education ProgrAms (in-cluding representatives for lowincidence populations)

Governor's Continuing Advisory Committee forSpecial Education

Institutions of Higher EducationTexas Elementary Principals and Supervisors

AssociationTexas Association of Secondary School

Principals*Texas Mental Health/Mental Retardation

AuthorityTexas Association of School AdministratorsTexas Association of School BoardsTexas Association of Supervisors and Curricu-

lum DirectorsTexas School for the DeafTexas School for the Blind and Visually

Impaired*Texas Planning Council for Developmen-

tal Disabilities

* Organization not able to identify representativewho could commit to the compressed time sched-ule of the project.

lb. Alternative avenues for input were establishedfor the following entities:

Advocacy Inc.The ARC of TexasTexas Planning Council for Developmental

Disabilities

Regular communication, meetings, and/or opportuni-ties for input of infonnation and feedback were pro-vided to these advocacy groups.

Ongoing meetings were conducted at the Texas Edu-cation Agency with personnel from special education;student assessment; accountability; policy, planning,and evaluation; and legal to review the progress ofthe project focus group, discuss issues, and receiveinput from TEA staff.

Objective 2: To ensure representative inputthrough project focus group

Activities

2a. In consultation with the Texas EducationAgency, Region IV ESC ensured that all groupscontacted included representation of the interestsof all disability groups through the inclusion ofprofessional organizations as well as advocacygroups.

2b. Cluster representation (e.g. multiple ESC ser-vice areas) from the major geographic areas ofthe state was used to attempt to coincide with theschool population density within each section ofthe state. An attempt was made to ensure thateach area of the state had no greater representa-tion of the project focus group than the percent-age of the school population of the state repre-sented by that area (e.g. Region IV ESC repre-sents a school population of approximately 20-25% of Texas).

2c. The gender and ethnic make-up of the projectfocus group was analyzed for diversity represen-tative of the school population in Texas. This wasaccomplished during the nomination process andwas stated as part of the nomination criteria.

GOAL II: Develop recommendations for inclu-sive accountability system

Objective 1: Address current issues and rec-ommended guidelines

Activities:

la. Region IV ESC staff worked with Drs.Ysseldyke and Thuriow to prepare a draft of criti-

S

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

cal issues in statewide assessment of students withdisabilities. The NCEO consultants met regularlywith Region IV ESC staff to determine the frame-work for the initial discussion draft, to refine theissues specific to Texas, to evaluate the progressofproject activities, and to prepare the resultingdocument for disseminatien.

lb. Region IV ESC personnel held a set ofprojectfocus group meetings to review the identified is-sues and determine generalization best fit to theTexas educational system. Ysseldyke and Thurlowmet with members of the project focus group foran initial 2-day meeting during the first week ofJune 1995. Along with Region IV ESC staff asfacilitators, the consultants walked the groupsthrough a tentative set of issues and discussed ra-tionale for the inclusion of each issue.

lc. The project focus group met as a study groupfor three additional meetings during June, July, andAugust to focus on each specific issue. Interimcontacts were made viaTenet, fax, and/or telephoneas needed. NCEO consultants were included inadditional meetings and met with project staff forfurther study and detailed development of the prod-uct document.

A collaborative approach was taken for de-velopment of the issues and assumptions, uti-lizing Group Systems V. Group Systems V isa computer-supported collaboration tool thatallowed for simultaneous and parallel process-ing for group interaction. The system allowedfor idea generation, organization, consensus-building, record keeping, and decision-making

The goal of each study session was to enableall members to evaluate issues, select among

all options under consideration, and to considereach issue within the context of the Texas sys-tems of assessment and accountability.

Action plan items were generated for eachissue. These were eventually collapsed, re-viewed for duplication, and finalized intocategories of recommended actions.

Objective 2: To develop recommended ac-tion plan

Activities

2a. The report preparation phase was accomplishedas a collaborative effort between Region IV ESCstaff, serving as the project facilitators, and theNCEO consultants. Working together to producethe comprehensive final report, the consultants andstaff submitted drafts of the working document tothe projectfocus group, advocacy groups, and TEAstaff for critique and input. Differing perspectiveswere considered for the ongoing revisions to thefinal document.

2b. The initial drafts were submined to theproject focus group for review and suggestionsprior to preparation of the final version inSeptember 1995. Dissemination was restrictedto this group during this phase of the project.

2c. Final document preparation and dissemina-tion to the Texas Education Agency was com-pleted by September 29, 1995. Further dissemi-nation and potential subsequent uses will needto be determined by the Texas EducationAgency.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Date

,:;,.."oiect,

.. 5 .re

Activity

April 5

April 7

April 10-13

April 21

April 24-May 4

May 4-10

May 12

May 15

May 17

May 18

May 25-26

May 30

June 5

Notification of project award

Contact with National Center for Educational Outcomes forStudents with Disabilities (NCEO)

- Dr. Jim Ysseldyke- Dr. Martha Thurlow

Development of outline for briefing paper for initial discussion

Conference with NCEO re: outline, meeting dates, purpose ofmeetings, agendas, process of development of project goals/objectives

Development of briefing paper, initial meeting agenda, docu-ments for nomination of project focus group (stakeholder group)representatives

Nomination by organizations of project focus group representatives

Project focus group members selected and notified

Review and edit of discussion document

Meeting in Austin with TEA staff (accountability, assessment, legal,special education, and evaluation); presentation of project plans

Distribution of briefing paper to project focus group to review priorto first meeting

Initial meeting in Houston of project focus group; initial develop-ment of critical issues

Meeting in Austin with TEA staff; presentation of briefing paper forinput; discussion of critical issues under consideration

Conference with NCEO; refined work of project focus group; planfor subsequent meeting of group

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Syslems: A Study of the Issues

Date

,, 4MgOIRWMV.MW4gataNOWOMMIRO

Activity

June 5-26

June 26-27

June 29

June 27-July 10

July 10

July 11

July 25

July 27

July 27

August 8

August 9

August 8 - Sept. 7

Continued refinement snd communicated with stakeholder groupmembers

Meeting in Houston with project focus group; continued develop-ment of critical issues and assumptions (info made available to thefield via Tenet)

Meeting in Austin with TEA staff; shared critical issues, assumptionsfor input

Communication of proft r focus group members with constituentsfor input; continued feedbk .ind refinement of critical issues;request for input for action plan (info made available to the field viaTenet)

Meeting in Houston of project focus group to finalize critical issueswith constituent input; complete development of action planrecommendations

Conference with NCEO; input incorporated into issues; draft formatto be used for final action plan

Conference between NCEO and Region IV ESC project staff torevise project document, identify adjustments needed re: constituentinput

Meeting in Austin with TEA for input re: fmal critical issues andassumptions, initial action plan development

Meeting in Austin with advocacy group to update on all projectactivities, review action plan development

Meeting in Houston of project focus group to incorporate constituentinput and address action plan development

Region IV ESC project staff and NCEO meeting to revise action planformat, revise document draft re: input received

Refine action plan input from project focus group members,advocacy group, TEA staff

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Date

r .** -es--

oject., flmetanes ats0 tivIties

Activity

August 15

August 15

August 29

September 7

September 12

September 15

September 8-29

September 26

September 29

Meeting in Austin with TEA staff to review draft of action planfor input recommendations

Meeting in Austin with advocacy group to review current documentdraft and solicit input for draft of action plan

Meeting in Austin with TEA staff to review revised draft of projectdocument for input

Region IV project staff and NCE0 consultants meeting to determineconstruct revisions for final draft

Meeting in Austin with TEA staff to review major construct revisionsto be completed, get additional input re: technical issues

Conference with advocacy group re: construct revisions and solicitfinal input

Finalize document for technical soimdness; edit for readability;ongoing communication with TEA, project focus group, advocacygroups

Meeting in Austin with Texas Education Agency staff for review of allrevisions, input to final document for technical accuracy

Final document to Texas Education Agency

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Appendix B

A description of what is happening in national data collectionprograms in the United States, and in the statewideassessments of individual states within the U.S., reveals that many issues exist related to the participation ofstudents with disabilities in assessments, in the use of. accommodations, and in accountability for the results ofeducation for students with disabilities. Presented here is a brief synopsis of some of what is known about thenational picture.

National Data Collection

In 1990, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and RehabilitativeServices, funded theNational Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota to develop a conceptualmodel to guide the process of collecting data on educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Among itsactivities, NCEO worked with the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to address ways to increaseparticipation of students with disabilities in our nation's major educational data collection program, the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

In the past, NAEP used fairly vague criteria to guide decisions about whether a student on an IndividualizedEducation Program (MP) participated in an assessment. NAEP did not allow the use of any accommodations.Under these conditions, approximately 65% of students with disabilities did DM participate in NAEP (Houser,1995). Furthermore, with the guidelines being used and the non-use of accommodations, states were found to beextremely variable in their rates of exclusion of students with disabilities (McGrew, Thurlow, & Spiegel, 1993).A study by the National Academy of Education (1993) found that the ranking of states would change if stateshad equivalent exclusion rates. To alleviate the difficulties associated with variable exclusion rates, and to havea data collection program that included more students with disabilities, in 1995 NAEP field-tested a new set ofdecision criteria for who should take NAEP, and for the first time, allowed the use of several different accommo-dations during assessment. As recent as September, 1995, the decision was made to include students withdisabilities in the 1996 NAEP on mathematics. Large enough samples of students with disabilities will beobtained to conduct adequate bridging calculations, and to explore the use of' accommodations during the ad-ministration of NAER

State Assessment Participation

State tests, for the most part, have been in place a number of years. Initial research conducted by NCEO on statepractices in assessing students with disabilities indicated thatmost states did not know the extent of participationof students with disabilities in their statewide assessments. For those states that did know, most had extremelylow percentages of participation (0 - 25%).

Participation Issues

In asking about participation of students with disabilities in assessment, NCEO found that the answer dependedon who was asked and how the question was stated. When NCEO personnel asked special education andassessment personnel in the same state, different answers often were given. NCEO also found that theresponse

0

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

differed when people were asked about participation in general and when they were asked about participation inspecific tests (NCEO, 1995). In the years since that initial survey, most states have identified the participationrates of students with disabilities. How states fit into different ranges of participation rates is shownin Exhibit 1.Even though much progress has been made in participation rates during the past five years, there remains muchvariance in practice. Forty-three states are now using statewide assessments. Yet, in only one state (Kentucky)do &students participate in the assessment system. Maryland excuses only 1% of their total student population.

Recent analyses of guidelines for statewide educational assessments (Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995a;Thurlow, Scott & Ysseldyke, 1995b; Thurlow, Shriner, & Ysseldyke, 1994) indicate that most states now havewritten guidelines for participation and accommodation decisions. The self-reported rules used by states (as of1993) to make decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in assessments are shown in Exhibit6.

States am struggling with how to provide assessment and accountability systems in which students with disabili-ties participate. These struggles are giving way to debates about the kinds of accommodations that must bemade to enable students with disabilities to participate. There is considerable variance in state efforts to date.Some states have large documents detailing accommodations that can be made; in others, accommodations arenot provided, or accommodations are used but results are discounted and eliminated from the reporting system(Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1994).

Exclusion

Exclusion can occur at three levels. The first level is during test development. Often, the needs of students withdisabilities are not considered when tests are developed, nor are students with disabilities included when thetests are standardized. When this happens, it limits the number of items in the test that are appmpriate for usewith students with disabilities and the appropriateness of normative comparisons. Second, exclusion can occurat the time that the tests are administered. This is the most commonly thought of point of exclusion, andincludes anecdotal exclusions such as the special education class that is sent on a field trip on test day, or theindividual student who is encouraged to stay at home on a particular day to avoid the disheartening experience oftaking the statewide assessment. Part of the issue of exclusion at the time of testing involves whether accommo-dations are allowed during the administration of an assessment. Many students are excluded from an assessmentwhen a needed accommodation is not provided or allowed.

The use of accommodations in state testing is an area in which there has been much change within the past twoyears. Initial research conducted by NCEO on state guidelines for allowable accommodations for students withdisabilities indicated that many different approaches were being taken, some of which were in contradiction toothers. For example, at that time, Tennessee, unlike many other states, prohibited the provision of extendedtime. Georgia specifically prohibited the interpretation of directions, while nine other states allowed this accom-modation. Nearly all states had a reference to the Individualized Education Program (IEP) in their accommoda-tion guidelines. The self-reported accommodations allowed by states (as of 1993) are shown in Exhibit 3.

The third level at which exclusion occurs is in the reporting of results. Students with disabilities sometimes aretested, but then their scores are not reported. In some states, the test protocols of students with disabilities aredestroyed. Of the 24 states with participation guidelines that address reporting of results for students withdisabilities, 14 indicate that the data from these students are not aggregated in data reports (Thurlow, Scott, &Ysseldyke, 1995a). In Oregon's guidelines, for example, it is noted that for students who take the statewide testunder modified testing conditions, the tests will be scored and returned to the district, but will= be included inthe school average. States can get quite detailed in describing what happens to data that are collected fromstudents with disabilities. For example, in 1994, North Dakuta had the following guidelines for reporting:

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

1. If the student is mainstreamed in 50 percent or more of the core courses being tested,. . . thestudent's test results are to be included in class, grade, district, and state averages.

2. If the student is mainstreamed in less than 50 percent of the core courses, . . . the student'stest results are not to be included in class, grade, district, and state averages.

3. If a student who has an IEP does not take all sections of the test, or if the student takes thetest under other than standard testing procedures, . . . the student's test results should not beincluded in the class, grade, district, and state averages (North Dakota Department of Pub-lic Instrucdon, 1994, p.1).

Other states include more of their students with disabilities in reports. Kentucky aggregates and reports all datafrom students with disabilities and students without disabilities at the home school level, regardless of wherethe student is educated (Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995a).

Consequences

Besides the variations in how states report results from statewide assessments, there are variations in theextentto which performance on tests has consequences for districts, schools, school personnel, and students. Studentconsequences typically involve withholding or awaiting a high school diploma (or promotion from one gradeor level of schooling to another). Currently, 17 states use assessments to decide whether a student receives agraduation diploma, and 2 additional states are preparing to begin using graduation exams in the next twoyears. How students with disabilities fa within this system varies considerably among those states with gradu-ation exams (Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Anderson, 1995). In 10 of the 17 states, students with disabilities mustpass the graduation exam in order to receive a standard diploma. In these states, if the student with a disabilitycompletes coursework (including, in some states, modified coursework) but does not pass the exam, a certifi-cate is awarded, the same as for all students. In the other states, the student with disabilities may be exemptedfrom the exam and still receive a standard diploma.

Research has confirmed many unintended consequences of these types of assessments. For example, RichardAllington and Anne McGill-Franzen (1992) investigated the effects of high-stakes testing on students withdisabilities. Students in New York state take examinations at periodic intervals, and dataon their performanceare used to make comparisons among districts. Districts report the percentages of their students who pass thebenchmark examinations. Allington and McGill-Franzen challenged the data from the third grade exams putout by schools, data indicating that in excess of 90% of third graders consistently were passing the benchmarktests. The authors obtained data on nine-year-olds (the typical third-grade age), and a very different pictureresulted. In some instances the percentage of students passing dropped into the mid 60s. They found that manynine-year-olds had been retained in second grade or placed in special education. When the scores of thesestudents were entered into scores for school districts, comparisons among districts changed.

The practice of excluding students from assessments has been referred to as "academic red shirting." In anarticle that appeared in the American School Board Journal, Matos (1994) described a New York communityschool that received a national award for educational excellence, based in part on its high test scores on thestate's third grade achievement test (96 percent of the school's students passed the test). A closer look at thedata revealed that many of the school's kindergarten through second grade students had been retained in gradeor placed in special education. The scores of these students were not included in the school's average score.Quick calculation indicated that if these students had been included, the school's pass rate would have droppedfrom 96 to 78 percent. Eatos showed that there are major differences among school districts in the numbers of

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

students with disabilities who are included in assessments. Percentages of overall earollment in grades testedvaried from 66% to 93%. No one has a good estimate of the corresponding percentages of students with disabili-ties.

When differing numbers of students and students with different characteristics (e.g., learning disability, limitedEnglish proficiency) are excluded from district assessments, comparisons among districts are invalid. Ziatosreached the following simple conclusion:

Mix up the variation from state to state and district to district in the type of tests and norms used,the grade levels tested, the amount of time spent on test preparation, or tt).. time of the year thetest is taken . . . toss in the difference of the number of students excluded, and test scoresbecome a witch's brew of incongruous ingredients. Accountability vanishes. (p. 25)

Several federal laws that have been enacted within the past few years have implications for state accountabilitysystems. Federal funds associated with the School-to-Work Oppottunities Act, the Improving America's SchoolsAct (formerly the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), and Goals 2000: Educate America Act are tied tostate assessments that include all students.

In the spring of 1995, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a request for proposals to fund upto four projects designed to study technical issues related to including students with disabilities in state assess-ments. The Office of Educational Research and Improvement (0ERI) also has issued a call for proposals fromstate and local education agencies to develop assessment systems, with a priority on systems that include stu-dents with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency. NCEO is working with the Council ofChief State School Officers (CCSSO) to form a State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS)that will address the complex issues in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. ASCASS already exists on assessing students with limited English proficiency.

Summary

In the past, the division between general and special education created dual systems, each accountable for itsown results. In most states, compliance monitoring was the assessment and accountability system for specialeducation, while the outcomes of general education, if assessed, were assessed by examining pupil performanceon standardized tests. This appmach fails to give a uniform picture of how all students are doing. An account-ability system that includes all students can be achieved, regardless of whether students with disabilities areserved in separate placements or within general education classrooms.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Appendix C

.16:002MoatagmmagazalamalWEVEMI,:1:1

Results-Based Monitoring for Special Education, Benchmark 1994-95, Texas Education Agency,December, 1994

State Plan for Fiscal Year 1994-1996 Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA), Submitted by the State of Texas, Negotiated Revision with Addendum, July, 1995

Accountability Manual: The 1995 Accountability Rating System for Texas Public Schools andSchool Districts and Blueprint for the 1996-2000 Accountability Systems, Texas Education Agency,Office of Policy Planning and Information Management, February, 1995

Long-Range Plan for Public Education, 1996-2000, State Board of Education, Draft, September,1995

Senate Bill 1 (Enrolled Version): Texas Education Code As Passed by the 74th Texas Legislature,May, 1995

Senate Bill 1: Summary of Key Provisions in the New Texas Education Code, Capitol Watch, Vol. I,Issue 8, Texas Association of School Administrators, June 1, 1995

Briefing Book on Sendte Bill 1: 74thTexas Legislature, Texas Education Agency, June, 1995

Questions and Answers on Senate Bill1 Frequently Asked Questions Relating to Senate Bill 1,Texas Education Agency, Office of Governmental Relations, July 20, 1995

Glossary for the Academic Excellence Indicator System, 1993-94 Report, Texas Education Agency,October, 1994

Rules and Regulations for Providing Special Education Services, Texas Education Agency, Divi-sion of Special Education, August, 1995

Including Students with Disabilities in Statmide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Appendix D

During the discussions of the project focus group many issues related to the topics under study arose. How-ever, it was acknowledged that they were not included in the charge to this project. In order to ensure that thevalue of each of these was not lost and would in some way be considered in further study and development,they are included here in brief:

Implications for Other Student Groups of Students with Special Needs

Other groups of students with special needs, beyond those who qualify for special education services, shouldalso be considered when detennining eligibility for accommodations and alternative assessment options.Many of these students who are labeled as low performing may be unfairly designated without accommoda-tions or alternative assessment options that might enhance their perfonnance. Their aggregated results mayalso significantly impact district and campus data when held to the standard administration procedures for theTAAS. These include, but are not limited to:

'students eligible under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,'students of limited English proficiency (LEP),'students dismissed from special education services who cannot pass the standard TAAS, and'low achieving, at-risk students who cannot pass the standard TAAS.

Discussions of Appropriateness of TMS for All Students

There was discussion about the appropriateness/desirability of the TAAS as the measure used for any ofTexas' =dent populations. It was recognized that considerable resources have been allocated to the develop-ment, expansion, and continuous improvement of the current state assessment. TEA's continued monitoringand review of the state assessment measures in place is supported. Ongoing development activities shouldcontinue to include diligent assurance of the alignment of the state TAAS objectives with core instructionalareas.

Use of Off-Level Testing

When accommodations are reviewed and alternative assessments are developed, off-level testing using theTAAS may be considered as an option for a nonstandard administration. Some students may be at a specifiedgrade level placement, but may be performing at a different grade level. Off-level testing would not be usedas comparable TAAS data for accountability purposes, but would only be used as to determine performance atthe instructional level being taught.

Including Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems: A Study of the Issues

Related Issues (continued)

Quality and Use of Individual Educational Plans (IEPs)

Although Individual Education Plans (1EPs) are intended to be used to track the perfonnance of students withdisabilities, reliance on IEPs as accurate and/or appropriate measures of student improvement has limitations. Itis recognized that some of the performance indicators in the new Results-Based Monitoring system have beendesigned to address these limitations. However, continuing concerns expressed by the project focus group aboutthe development and use of lEPs include:

Some personnel are not well trained in appropriate IEP development,IEPs may not always be aligned with content instruction and assessment,IEPs are sometimes not used once they are developed,Age-inappropriate goals/objectives are included in some IEPs,Limited or no change in objectives from year to year has occurred for some students,Limited goal setting and expectations may be included in IEPs,The use of computerized sets of goals/objectives allow for "generic" lEPs,Insufficient input from parents may limit the scope of IEP goalVobjectivesIEPs are often not used as planning documents as they are intended.

Some consideration might be given to the scope of monitoring activities related to IEPs and the trainingneeded at the preservice and professional levels.

High Referral/Over-referral for Special Education Services

High stakes accountability in Texas continues to create the perception and/or concern about high referral ratesfor special education service for students who do not qualify (see attached letter, TEA, 1992). Reporting theresults of all students and using the performance results in some way to examine campuses and districts shouldbe considered.

Requirements for ln:titutions of Higher Education

Changes in student assessment and accountability have significant implications for education training programsin colleges and universities in Texas. Standards should be considered for course requirements and field-basedexperiences, considering increasing requirements related to special populations for all educators-in-training.

TexasEducationAgency

: 1

May 6, 1992

TO THE ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESSED:

INFORMATIONONLY

Subject: Special Education Not a Remedy for Seniors Failing the TexasAssessment of Academic Skills (TAAS)

The Texas Education Agency has received numerous calls about senior: beingreferred for special education services when they fail the exit level of theTAAS. According to the calls received, the referral usually occurs after thestudent has failed two or more administrations of the test. While possible,it is highly unlikely that a student would progress with passing grades to thesenior level and have a handicapping condition that meets the criteria forreceiving special education services.

To be eligible for special education services, an admission, review, anddismissal (ARD) committee must determine that the student meets theeligibility criteria for one of the handicapping conditions in Title 19 TexasAdministrative Code, Chapter 89, Subchapter G, Special Education, And has aneed for special education services. Failing the TAAS does not constitute aneducational need for special education services. In addition, exempting thestudent from the TAAS is not a special education service. If a student isdetermined to be eligible for special education, it is the district'sresponsibility to prouide instructional and related services based on theneeds of the student, not just on exemption from the TAAS.

I am asking for the cooperation of all superintendents and principals incontacting your education service center for assistance in helping seniorspass the TAAS and in referring for special education services only thosestudents suspected of having a handicapping condition. Your attention to thisshould result in more immediate and appropriate help to seniors and in fewerseniors being referred just prior to graduation for special educationassessment - a very costly process.

If you have questions regarding this issue, please contact the Division ofSpecial Education at (512) 463-9414.

S

gsE cutir Pro

Deputy Commissionirrams and Instructi

Texas Assessment of Academic SkillsSpring 1995

NM =MIMI MI 'wit.'

COORDINATOR MANUAL

District and Campus

March Test Administration

TAAS Exit Level Writing, Mathematics, and ReadingTEAMS Mathematics and English Language ArtsTAAS Writing at Grades 4 and 8

May Test Administration

TAAS Mathematics and Reading for Grades 3 through 8

TAAS Grade 8 Social Studies and ScienceTAAS Exit level Writing, Mathematics, and Reading for

Graduating Seniors and Out-of-School Examinees

98

TAAS

Testing Modifications

Certain test administration procedures that do not cause test results to be invalid maybe used.

The decision to use a particular modification with a student should be made on anindividual basis and should take into consideration the needs of the student andwhether the student routinely receives the modification in classroom instruction.

Allowable Modificationso Instructions given orally before or after the test may be signed to an examinee

with a hearing impairment or translated into the native language of an examineewith limited English proficiency. Test items, including the written compositionprompt, must not be signed or translated.

o Examinees may place a colored transparency over the test, or they may use aplace marker with the test and the answer document.

L-.) Examinees may receive an individual administration of the assessmentinstrument and, in this setting, may read aloud as they work.

ca The examinee may use a large-print version of the test.

o The examinee may use a braille version of the test.

o The examinee may use a magnifying glass when testing.

ci Examinees may respond orally to test items, mark responses in their testbooklet, or type their responses if they have a disabling condition that interfereswith their ability to record machine-readable responses. If an examinee mustdictate a composition, the examinee must spell out all words and indictate allcapital letters and punctuation marks. Afterward, the examinee must beallowed to read over the composition and indicate where he or she would like tomake corrections. The test administrator must record these responsesverbatim on a standard answer document. It is recommended thatadministrators write "Transcribed by (NAME) because (REASON)" at the top ofthe answer document. Test responses cannot be scored unless they appear onthe answer document.

o The examinee may type the TAAS written composition on a typewriter or on acomputer but may not use the computer's "spell check" feature or save thedocument. The composition must be transcribed onto a regular answerdocument for scoring. It is recommended that administrators write "Transcribedby (NAME) because (REASON)" at the top of the answer document.

4 TESTNG PROGRAM OVERVIEW TESTING MODIFICATIONS

9

Nonallowable Modificationso The examinee may not receive any special reading assistance on the writing or

reading tests. Students who are identified as having dyslexia or a relateddisorder may qualify for an oral administration of the mathematics. Grade 8social studies, and/or Grade 8 science tests.

The examinee may not use a calculator.

3 The examinee may not use a slide rule.

The examinee may not use English-language or foreign-language referencematerials.

O Other modifications that would make the test invalid are prohibited.

Oral AdministrationA test administrator may read aloud the test questions and answer choices for themathematici, Grade 8 social stud,Js, and/or Grade 8 science tests to those eligibleTAAS examinees who are identified as having dyslexia or a related disorder and whoregularly receive this modification in the classroom. This modification is available onlyfor the mathematics, social studies, and science sections of the TAAS test. It is notavailable for the TEAMS test.

The decision to provide an oral administration to students receiving special educationservices should be made by the student's admission, review, and dismissal committee.For students not in special education, this determination rests with the committee thatisrequired by Section 504 of the .Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to make the student'splacement decisions. Directions for reading aloud the mathematics, social studies, andscience tests are in Appendix B.

Modifications that would invalidate the test should not be used for exemptstudents who test if results are to be compared to results for non-exemptstidents.

TESTING MODIFICATIONS TESTING PROGRAM OVERVIEW 5

100

End-of-Course

Test Eligibility

I ) All students who ate scheduled to complete the second semester of an Algebra I or

a Biology I course in May must take the end-of-course examination. This includes

students of limited English proficiency and students served through special education.

Exception: A special education student whose admission, review, and dismissal (ARD)

committee specifies in the individual educational plan (IEP) the need for content

modification in the course will not be required to take an end-of-course examination.

In such a case, the following points should be kept in mind:

Testing is not appropriate because the student's disability prevents him or her from

mastering part of the actual course content.

Course credit for a student with content modification will be accompanied by the

letter "S" on the student transcript.A district may give the test to the student for local purposes. The "C" in the "Score

Code" field on the answer document should be marked so that the student's test will

not be scored by the state. However, the answer document must be submitted but will

be scanned for demographic information only.

2) Students who are scheduled to complete the second semester of Algebra I or Biology I

prior to May may take the end-of-course examination.

3) Smdents who are retaking the first semester of Algebra I or Biology I are not required to

teat.

Test Modifications

Certain test administration procedures that do not invalidate test results may be used.

The decision to use a particular modification with a student should be made on an individual

basis and should take into consideration the needs of the student and whether the student

routinely receives the modification in classroom instruction.

Modifications Allowable in a Standard Administration

Insttuctions given orally before or after the test may be signed to a student with a

bearing impairment or translated into the native language of a student with limited

English proficiency.

A student may place a colored transparency over the test or use a place marker

with the test and answer document.

Students may receive an individual administration of the assessment instrun .;:nt

and. in this setting, may read aloud as they work.

A student may use a large-print version of the test.

A student may use a braille version of the test.

Students may respond orally to test items, mark responses in their test booklet, or

type responses if they have a disabling condition that interferes with their ability

2 1 01.

to record machine-readable responses. The test adminisuator must record these

responses verbatim on astandard answer documetr. It is recommended that

administrators write "Transcribed by (NAME) because (REASON)" at the top

of the answer document.

Modifications Allowable in a Nonstandard Administration

Certain nonstandard administration procedures may be necessary for students who are

required to test. The use of a nonstandard administration procedure must be indicated on

the student's answer document and will be noted on the student's performance report. The

following modifications are allowable in a nonstandard administration.

A student with dyslexia or a related disorder may receive an oral administration of

an end-of-course test.

A limited English proficient student may use a dictionary that provides translations

of English words if such a dictionary is used as part of his or her regular classroom

instruction.

A limited English proficient student may have words on the test translated into his

or her native language if this assistance is part of his or her regular classroom

instmction. In providing a student with translation assistance, only native-languageequivalents for English words or phrases may be given. The translator must be

careful not to provide interpretations that would allow the student an advantage in

arriving at a correct response.

The decision to provide an oral administration to students receiving special education

services should be made by the student's admission, review, and dismissal committee. For

students not in special education, this determination rests with the committee that is

required by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to make the students' placement

decisions.

The decision to allow the use of abilingual dictionary or a translator should be made by the

disuict and should take into account the individual needs of the student and whether the

student routinely receives the modification in classroom instruction.

ft& If a student receives any of the modifications allowable in a nonstandardadministration, the test administrator must complete the field "NS"(nonstandard administration) on the front of the answer document

Test Materials

The Austin Operations Center sent anorder form to all districts in January allowing them

to order the number of booklets needed. The number of test booklets a district is scheduled

to receive for the Alg ;bra I and Biology I tests will be based on the number ordered by

districts.

End-of-course materials will be received and returned separately from TAAS materials.