All Kids Count
Executive Summary: Analysis of Statewide Assessment Survey Results
Over the past months, from the Summer of 1997 through February 1998, the PEER Project conducted a survey of statewide assessment programs. The purpose of the survey was to provide parents, parent leaders, professionals, advocates, and others with a snapshot of their state’s policies and current practices in assessment. With the recent passage of the IDEA Amendments of 1997, many statewide assessment programs are in flux; nearly all will have to make major changes in assessment policies and practices to fully implement IDEA. The survey findings and individual state profiles will assist those efforts in a number of ways. First, since students with disabilities have been largely excluded from large-scale asessment in the past, parents and others concerned with the education of students with disabilities are unfamiliar with the language and practices of assessment. The state profiles provide a handy reference for understanding the status of statewide assessment in one’s own state and for identifying areas where more information may be needed. The survey will also serve a useful purpose by providing a point of reference to gauge future progress toward achieving full compliance with IDEA.
The following report summarizes our key findings as of February 1998.
General Overview
Forty-seven states currently have some form of statewide assessment program in place. Statewide large-scale assessments are usually standardized "paper and pencil" assessments that are different from the individualized evaluations required by IDEA. Statewide assessment programs have different goals than special education assessments. Usually, the purpose of a statewide assessment is twofold: (1) to provide information about individual student achievement, and (2) to gauge the success of schools and school systems, i.e., to hold educators accountable for student attainment of educational outcomes.
In many states, test results have high stakes for individual students. For example, more than a third (43%) of the states require students to "pass" an assessment in order to receive a high school diploma. These high stakes underscore the importance of participation. If students with disabilities are exempt from the assessment, they will not even be considered when schools are determining which students are eligible to receive diplomas.
The type of assessments utilized by states throughout the country are quite varied. There is a wide range in the choice of specific assessment instruments, the grades in which students are assessed, the subjects tested, and the types of questions used. Regardless of the specific nature of a state’s assessment system, full implementation of IDEA requires a focus on state policies for including and accommodating students with disabilities in the assessment program.
Findings Related to Students with Disabilities
The following is a summary of the PEER Project’s survey findings (corresponding to questions 6, 7, and 8 of the state profiles) which pertain to students with disabilities.
1. Participation of All Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment
The state must have "...in effect policies and procedures to ensure that...[c]hildren with disabilities are included in general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations, where necessary" [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(17)].
All children with disabilities must participate in statewide assessment. Yet, very few states currently have policies which provide for full participation of students with disabilities. The vast majority (89%) of states currently allow exemption of some students with disabilities. The exemption criteria for many states are quite broad, leading to concern that existing policies contribute to exclusion of large numbers of students from participation in the assessment. More than one quarter (28%) of the states do not provide any specific criteria for IEP teams to utilize when determining exemptions. In addition, there are still some states (17%) that continue to exempt students based on the restrictiveness of their placement or the category of their disability, policies that are clearly inconsistent with the IDEA Amendments of 1997. In a few states, the IEP team is not used to determine a student’s participation in assessments. These policies and practices will need to be changed to comply with IDEA.
One third of the states allow exemptions for students whose instructional programs do not reflect the learning standards on which the test is based or for students who are not seeking a diploma. These exemption criteria are particularly troubling. IDEA was amended to require access to the general education curriculum. This change was made in recognition of the fact that many students are currently denied the opportunity to learn the same curriculum provided to students without disabilities. Thus, exemption criteria linked to a student’s lack of participation in the general curriculum will simply solidify these exclusionary practices.
IDEA now mandates that a state must conduct alternate assessments for children who cannot participate in the general statewide assessment, even with accommodations [20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(17(A)(ii)]. "Only a small percentage" of students should participate in the state assessment program with alternate tests [Note to Proposed Rules 34 C.F.R. 300.138]. Alternate assessments must be available no later than July 1, 2000. Yet, a Summer 1997 phone survey conducted by the PEER Project found that 62% of the 26 states responding did not have alternate assessments available. This finding is consistent with the survey conducted by the Council of Chief State School Officers* which indicated that 90% of the states did not have alternate assessments available. This is of grave concern, because the unavailability of these tests means that students requiring alternate assessments to demonstrate what they know will be denied that opportunity. It will take time to develop the alternate assessments necessary to provide students with equal opportunities to demonstrate their competencies. Therefore, state agencies must act quickly in order to comply with IDEA and be ready to conduct alternate assessments by July 1, 2000.
State officials frequently indicated that they were in the process of revising state exemption policies in view of the new IDEA requirements. Significantly, all the states have adopted policies regarding participation of students with disabilities, a change that signifies notable progress over recent years. In addition, the vast majority of states utilize the IEP team for making assessment decisions. It is now crucial that parents, educators, and state and federal officials ensure that any new policies address the needs of all students with disabilities.
* Annual Survey of State Student Assessment Programs: Data on 1995-96 Statewide Student Assessment Programs. (Fall 1996). Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC.
2. Provision of Appropriate Accommodations in order for Children with Disabilities to Participate in Statewide Assessments
The IEP must include "...a statement of any individual modifications in the administration of State or districtwide assessments of student achievement that are needed in order for the child to participate in such assessment" [20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(1)(A)(v)(I)].
The IEP team is authorized and required to specify any accommodations and modifications necessary for the child to participate in the statewide assessments. In the vast majority of states, the IEP teams do determine individual accommodations. Few states, however, comply fully with IDEA requirements.
Almost three quarters of the states (72%) provide a list of "approved accommodations." The majority of these states, however, preclude IEP teams from recommending an accommodation that is not on the approved list. Such a restriction is inconsistent with IDEA because it limits the ability of the IEP team to choose accommodations or modifications based on the student’s individual needs. Only five states appear to permit IEP teams to choose the accommodations or modifications a student needs even if the accommodations are not on the state’s approved list. Twelve states allow the IEP team to request state approval for an accommodation that is not listed. However, this approval process still removes the IEP decision about accommodations from the team most knowledgeable about the child, a practice inconsistent with IDEA.
State policies which allow IEP teams to consider the full range of accommodations, including those utilized in classroom instruction, will best protect against discrimination in assessment practices. Approximately one quarter of the states appear to have such policies, allowing IEP teams to consider accommodations based solely on the child’s individual needs. At the same time, it is important to note that additional research will be needed to address technical issues around test measurement and use of the full range of accommodations.
3. Reporting Scores of Students with Disabilities with the Scores of All Other Students ("Aggregated") and Separately from the Scores of Students without Disabilities ("Disaggregated")
Reports to the public under...[this section]...must include aggregated data that include the performance of children with disabilities together with all other children and disaggregated data on the performance of children with disabilities [Proposed Rules 34 C.F.R. 300.139 (b)].
IDEA requires states to report the scores of students with disabilities in two ways. First, school, district, and statewide summaries must report the scores of students with disabilities with the scores of all other students ("aggregated" scores). This provision is important because if the scores of students with disabilities are only reported separately, the achievement of students with disabilities is likely to be considered as less important when evaluating school performance. As stated in the comment section of the proposed rules regarding aggregation of data: "The Secretary believes that the IDEA Amendments of 1997 were designed to foster consideration of children with disabilities as a part of the student population as a whole." In addition, school, district, and statewide summaries must also report the performance of children with disabilities separately from the scores of students without disabilities ("disaggregated" scores) to allow analysis of student performance and identification of specific trends.
Approximately one fifth (23%) of the states currently report both aggregated and disaggregated scores. Approximately one half of the states report only disaggregated scores, reporting the performance of students with disabilities separately from students without disabilities. The remaining states only provide aggregated reports, incorporating the scores of students with disabilities in local and state reports. As states move forward to implement the new provisions of IDEA, they must ensure that all reports are comprised of scores of students with disabilities in the aggregated and disaggregated forms. Reporting aggregated and disaggregated scores will ensure that the performance of students with disabilities is fully considered when evaluating the overall performance of our public schools.
Again, the PEER Project emphasizes that these findings are intended as a snapshot of the status of statewide assessment programs at a particular moment in time. The U.S. Department of Education, states, school districts, educators, parents, professionals, students, and other interested citizens will continue to be actively engaged in developing meaningful ways to measure progress and evaluate educational practices of students and schools. It is critical that issues for students with disabilities be considered as these systems are designed and developed. Implementing IDEA will present many rewards and challenges as we strive to extend the benefits of school reform to all students.
 Previous | Next 
|
Information About PDF