Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html

The Mission of the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Acknowledgments

State Directors of Special Education

Executive Summary

Overview of 2001 Survey

The Bottom Line: Consequences of Inclusive Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

Assessment Participation and Performance

Assessment Accommodations

Alternate Assessments

Reporting

Accountability

Current Issues

Emerging Issues and Future Challenges

Appendix A: State Assessment Participation and Performance Summary Table

Appendix B: Accommodations Summary Table

Appendix C: Alternate Assessment Summary Table

Appendix D: Reporting Summary Table

Appendix E: Accountability Summary Table

Appendix F: Current Issues Summary Table

The Mission of the National Center on Educational Outcomes

NCEO is a collaborative effort of the University of Minnesota, the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). NCEO provides national leadership in assisting state and local education agencies in their development of policies and practices that encourage and support the participation of students with disabilities in accountability systems and data collection efforts.

 NCEO focuses its efforts in the following areas:

• Research on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in state and national assessments and other educational reform efforts.

• Dissemination and Technical Assistance through publications, presentations, technical assistance, and other networking activities.

• Collaboration and Leadership to build on the expertise of others and to develop leaders who can conduct needed research and provide additional technical assistance.

The Center is supported primarily through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G000001) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on limited English proficient students, is provided by other federal and state agencies. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration in the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. Opinions or points of view expressed within this document do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Education or the Offices within it.

NCEO Staff
Deb A. Albus
John S. Bielinski
Jane L. Krentz
Kristi K. Liu
Jane E. Minnema
Michael L. Moore
Rachel F. Quenemoen
Dorene L. Scott
Sandra J. Thompson
James E. Ysseldyke

Martha L. Thurlow, Director

Additional copies of this report may be ordered for $15.00. Please write or call:

Publications Office
NCEO
350 Elliott Hall
75 E. River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55455

612/624-8561   •    Fax: 612/624-0879   •   http://education.umn.edu/NCEO

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Acknowledgments

A comprehensive report that contains information from all 50 states is only possible through the collective efforts of every state director and staff. Thanks to the thoughtful responses of the directors and their designees who completed this survey, we are able to share trends, accomplishments, and frustrations. We appreciate the willingness of many of the respondents to share their progress honestly, knowing that we are all learning as we go and that progress is sometimes painfully slow and tedious. The purpose of this report is not to check for compliance with federal mandates nor to point fingers at states that have had a difficult time moving their systems forward; it is simply to capture where states are now and to provide information to help states view their own progress in light of other states.

State agency personnel are often barraged by requests for information. With the value of each director’s time in mind, we designed a survey that would capture information not requested by other groups, a survey that could be completed online in a minimal amount of time. We appreciate the time taken by respondents to talk to people outside of special education, and we hope that this collaborative effort increased awareness within and across state programs and departments.

For their support, special thanks go to:

• David Malouf and Lou Danielson, of the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education;

• Eileen Ahearn, of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education; and

• Michael Moore, online survey designer and communications director for
  the National Center on Educational Outcomes.

2001 State Special Education Outcomes was prepared by Sandra Thompson and Martha Thurlow, with support from research assistant Chris Boys.

State Directors of Special Education

These were the state directors of special education in April 2001 when the survey was conducted.

Executive Summary

This report summarizes the eighth survey of state directors of special education by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, American Samoa, and Palau. The purpose of this report is to capture the state of the nation as states build the participation and performance of students with disabilities in state and district standards, assessments, and accountability systems, and to provide information to help states view their own progress in light of other states.

State directors report increased participation rates of students with disabilities in state assessments, and in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first year of alternate assessment implementation has been challenging, but most states now have systems in place and are grappling with how to include the results in their accountability systems in ways that show the progress of every student toward state and district standards.

Among the more striking findings are the following:

• More states listed positive consequences of inclusive standards, assessments, and accountability than listed negative consequences.

• More than half of the states reported increases in participation rates.

• In two-thirds of the states, directors reported stable or increased performance levels of students with disabilities on state tests.

• Nearly 60% of states keep track of the use of accommodations, and half of these reported increased use of accommodations.

• Most states are using a portfolio or body of evidence approach for their alternate assessments.

• While students may use accommodations whether or not they are approved, nearly half of the states do not report the scores of students who use non-approved accommodations.

• Twenty-five states include alternate assessment participants in all components of their accountability systems.

A positive theme throughout this report is that the benefits of inclusive assessment and accountability systems are beginning to outweigh the challenges, and many states are taking positive approaches as they face the challenges ahead.

Overview of 2001 Survey

This report marks the eighth time over the past ten years that the National Center on Educational Outcomes has collected information from state directors of special education about the participation of students with disabilities in education reform. Reform efforts continue to evolve at a rapid pace. The purpose of this report is to capture the progress of states as they move toward assessment and accountability systems that include every student.

Figure 1. Positive Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

Figure 2. Negative Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Systems

Figure 3. Change in Participation Levels of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments

Table 1. Reasons Allwed by State Policy for Students to be Excused from Assessment Participation