WHO WE ARE
|
PUBLICATIONS | PRESENTATIONS | PROJECTS
| RELATED SITES | STAFF
| SITE MAP
| SEARCH
| WHAT'S NEW
| HOME
WHO WE ARE
|
PUBLICATIONS | PRESENTATIONS | PROJECTS
| RELATED SITES | STAFF
| SITE MAP
| SEARCH
| WHAT'S NEW
| HOME
An Analysis of Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in State Standards Documents
by Martha Thurlow, James Ysseldyke, Sarah Gutman, and Kristin Geenen
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
January, 1998
This document has been archived by NCEO because some of the information it contains is out of date.
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Gutman, S., & Geenan, K. (1998). An analysis of inclusion of students with disabilities in state standards documents (Technical Report No. 19). 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/Technical19.html
Executive Summary
State standards continue to flourish as emphasis is placed on the need to identify what students should know and be able to do as a result of their educational experiences. Nearly every state now has some type of standards in place or in development. While ther has been considerable rhetoric about these being standards for all students, the extent to which this is the case has not previously been analyzed.
There types of analyses were carried out to explore the inclusiveness of state standards for students with disabilities. Specifically, we looked at (1) the extent to which individuals who know students with disabilities were involved in the development process, (2) the extent to which students with disabilities were identified as being a target group of students for the standards, and (3) the extent to which the standards represent broad domains of learning.
These analyses revealed that while most states indicate that their standards are for "all" students, only 13 states specifically state that "all" includes students with disabilities. Furthermore, those involved in the development of standards rarely were individuals who know students with disabilities. Only eight states indicated specifically that these individuals were included in standards development. Finally, state standards were quite comprehensive, covering many areas beyond academics. Of course, this says nothing about accountability for these standards; states almost exclusively focus their assessments on academics.
Among the recommendations that are supported by this research are the following:
State Standards
In 1990, with the passage of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, President Bush and governors from across the nation defined six National Education Goals for the year 2000. These goals, along with two others adopted by Congress in 1994, led the way for standards-based education reform throughout the United States. Goals 2000 legislation has provided funding for states to develop state goals and standards in all academic areas using the National Education Goals as a guide. At the same time or earlier, professional groups such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) were writing or producing national content standards in a number of subject areas. Currently, national standards have been developed or are being developed in mathematics, the arts, civics, economics, English, foreign language, geography, history, physical education, science, and social studies (Geenen, Scott, Schaefer, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1995). These national standards have influenced standards development in many of the states (Geenen, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1995). Even as the national standards fell into disfavor because of their potential link to a national curriculum (Business Roundtable, 1996), 48 states have identified state standards of what students should know and be able to do as a result of their educational experiences (AFT, 1996).
The process of developing state standards is long and complex. It encompasses decisions about what level students should be expected to achieve as well as decisions about which topics are most important for students to learn. Many states have turned to national standards for guidance in these areas, but opinions are mixed about the place of national standards in state education systems. A recent survey by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1997) asked respondents (most of whom were ASCD members) what they thought about national standards. While 85% agreed that national standards are a "good idea," their opinions about how these standards should be used tended to differ. Only 29% believed the standards should be followed closely in local curriculum development, half believed they should be adapted to encompass local needs or concerns, and 21% thought that they should be used as only one of many resources. Even though national standards provide useful information about what students should know and be able to do at different grade levels, some people feel uncomfortable relying solely on national standards to shape instruction for students across the country.
In addition to national standards documents, creators of state standards documents sometimes look to business leaders for direction. Since businesses will be receiving students after graduation, their input can be valuable in determining what skills students should learn while they are in school. The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers that addresses public policy issues affecting the economy, created a guide for business leaders who want to get involved in the standards setting process (Business Roundtable, 1996). This document suggests that standards should reflect the academic skills and knowledge that students will need once they are in the work force. Also, business leaders as well as the general public should be involved in the writing and reviewing of state standards. The Business Roundtable noted that standards should be tied to effective assessments, and that they should be comparable to or higher than standards from other nations. Although these recommendations are aimed at getting business leaders more involved in standards development and reform, they are also helpful guidelines for anyone involved in standards writing.
A second guide to standards development put out by the Education Commission of the States (ECS, 1996) is aimed at state policymakers who are directly involved in standards setting. Similar to the Business Roundtable, ECS suggested involving the public as well as teachers in standards development. Allowing plenty of time for development, collaborating with policymakers from other states, and developing an accountability system to keep the public informed about student progress also were recommended. Another important idea was that standards should apply to all students rather than only those with high academic achievement.
Similar guidelines were produced to address standards that already have been developed and published. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 1996) reviewed standards documents from the 48 states that have them. AFT used the following five qualifications:
(1) Standards must define in every grade or at designated grade-level benchmarks the common content and skills students should learn in each subject.
(2) Standards must be detailed and comprehensive enough to lead to a common core curriculum.
(3) Standards must be firmly rooted in the content of the subject area.
(4) Standards must be clear and explicit about the content all students are expected to learn.
(5) Standards that are organized on a course-by-course basis in high school must define which courses all students are expected to take.
In their review of state standards, the AFT found that states generally have a strong commitment to standards-based reform. Still, while most states have strong standards in one or more subject area, few had them in all of the core academic areas. AFT noted that only 15 states have standards in math, science, English and social studies that it considered to be "clear, specific, and well grounded in content." AFT suggested that states use their own strong standards as well as exemplary standards from other states as guides for creating quality standards in all core areas. AFT also found that most states (42) have or are in the process of developing assessments that align with state standards; however less than half require or plan to require students to pass high school graduation exams that are linked to state standards.
One issue that often is ignored in the literature concerning standards, as well as standards documents themselves, is the inclusion of students with disabilities. When a document outlines what students should know and be able to do at certain points in their education, expectations for students with disabilities are often unclear. Even when the documents state that "all" students are expected to reach the standards, many do not specifically state that students with disabilities are included.
It is also often the case that special educators are not included in the standards development process. A recent study of 18 states by the Center for Policy Research (1996) on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform found that in most states, special educators had not played a major role in developing standards. The study found that "special educators’ roles (if any) have usually been limited to reviewing documents that have been prepared by others" (p. 19). This suggests that even when standards are meant to apply to all students, they are not necessarily written with all students (including those with disabilities) in mind. The Center recommended that special educators be included in the standards development process so that all students are fairly represented, and the needs of all students are adequately addressed in state standards.
The inclusion of students with disabilities in state standards and the participation of special educators in standards development are two topics of significant importance to the development of standards for all students. Up until now, there has not been a comprehensive study about how states are dealing with these issues. In the present study, we reviewed the standards documents for all grades and subjects in order to answer three basic questions: (1) Were special educators involved in the development of the standards? (2) How were students with disabilities included in the standards? and (3) What was the breadth of educational outcomes covered in the standards?
Method
Obtaining State Documents
Throughout the process of collecting and reviewing state education standards documents, we did our best to obtain the most up-to-date information from all states. When this project began, NCEO already had many standards documents on file as a result of its ongoing effort to keep current information from all states. A second resource for identifying standards was the Putnam Valley Schools internet site on Developing Educational Standards (http://putwest.boces.org/Standards.html). This site contains links to those states that have published standards on the internet. For many states, we were able to download and print the standards and add them to our files. Two additional sources were also helpful in determining whether our documents were both the most recent, and also the ones that states considered to be their official standards. The sources were "Struggling for Standards" ("Setting the Standards from State to State," 1995), and Standards and Assessment Development in the Great City Schools (Council of the Great City Schools, 1996). Both documents give state-by-state listings of current standards documents as well as names of people to contact for more information. Using these documents, we were able to contact the states for which we did not have standards on file, and request copies of their current standards.
One problem we faced while collecting standards documents was that new documents were constantly being created since many states were in the process of restructuring or revising their standards. In this review, we include only those standards or standards drafts that were complete at the time we collected the information. A complete listing of documents that we reviewed, arranged by state, is provided in Appendix A.
Review of Documents
Once we obtained standards documents from all states, we were able to review them and determine three things: whether special educators were involved in the development process, whether students with disabilities are included in and held to the standards, and the breadth of the standards. The review process began with several meetings of three researchers to determine what criteria would be used when reviewing standards documents in the three areas of focus.
Involvement of special educators. In order to determine whether special educators were involved in standards development, we looked for lists of authors in each subject area. We then looked for titles indicating involvement with special education such as "special education teacher" or "resource teacher." We also looked for affiliations with special education organizations. Participation of special educators was recorded only if titles or affiliations were specifically noted in the list of authors.
Inclusion of students with disabilities. The second component of the review focused on the extent to which students with disabilities are held to state standards. Documents covering each subject area from each of the states were divided into six categories:
1. Separate standards for separate groups of students. The state has created separate standards for students with disabilities.
2. Some proportion of students are expected to achieve the standard. The standards document specifically states that some students (usually those with disabilities) are not required to meet the state standards.
3. "All" students are expected to meet state standards. The standards document states that "all" students are required to meet standards. It does not specify whether students with disabilities are included.
4. "All" students specifically includes students with disabilities. The document clarifies what is meant by "all" and states that students with disabilities are included.
5. "All" students specifically includes students with disabilities and calls for instructional/curricular accommodations. The document states that accommodations must be made to ensure that all students can meet the standards. Some states may also give examples of possible accommodations.
6. No mention. The document gives no indication of which students are held to the state standards.
Breadth of standards. The NCEO outcomes model was used to structure this analysis. We noted which of the eight NCEO outcome domains were addressed in the standards documents for each subject area from each state. NCEO developed the domains to describe what the outcomes of education should be for "all" students, including those with disabilities. More detailed information about the outcome domains is available in NCEO’s Outcomes and Indicators Series documents (e.g., Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Erickson, 1994a, 1994b; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Gilman, 1993a, 1993b, 1993c, 1993d). The outcome domains include:
Presence and Participation. Students are both physically present and actively participating in activities in school and in the community.
Accommodation and Adaptation. Students are able to access and use appropriate accommodations or adaptations in order to achieve the standards. Parents should also be active participants and supporters in the educational system.
Physical Health. Students are able to make healthy lifestyle choices; are aware of basic safety, fitness, and health care needs; and are physically fit.
Responsibility and Independence. Students are able to be responsible in a variety of situations. They are able to accomplish tasks independently, and can get about in the environment on their own.
Contribution and Citizenship. Students comply with school and community rules, and are active and responsible citizens.
Academic and Functional Literacy. Students demonstrate competence in academic and non-academic areas.
Personal and Social Adjustment. Students demonstrate socially acceptable and healthy behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge regarding mental well-being. They have good self images and can also get along with other people.
Satisfaction. Students, parents, and community members are satisfied with the education that students are receiving in school.
Analysis of Documents
One researcher reviewed documents from each subject area in each state. Participation of special educators in standards development, inclusion of students with disabilities in the standards documents, and applications of NCEO outcome domains were recorded. Pertinent information from the documents was quoted in the initial analysis to allow a second reviewer to give input about the accuracy of the review. The second reviewer also looked at standards documents from three states to confirm the analyses of the first reviewer. Results were summarized to identify general trends in the state standards documents.
Findings
Education standards from 47 states were reviewed. These were from all states except California, Iowa, and Wyoming. Iowa and Wyoming do not publish any type of statewide standards; individual districts are encouraged to develop local standards. California has developed curriculum frameworks describing the information that should be covered in each subject area, but do not list specific standards that students are expected to meet. We therefore did not include California in the study, although the previously cited American Federation of Teachers study (AFT, 1996) did include California. This accounts for the discrepancy between the AFT total of 48 states and the NCEO total of 47 states.
A comprehensive state-by-state list of all standards documents included in this review is provided in Appendix A. Further information about each of these documents is reported in the table in Appendix B, which covers the inclusion of students with disabilities in the document and the involvement of special educators in standards development, and in Appendix C, which covers the breadth of standards across NCEO outcome domains. Information from each state in the Appendix B and Appendix C tables is condensed across documents in the body of this report.
Table 1. Involvement of Special Educators in State Standards Development
Involvement of Special Educators in State Standards Development |
|||||
| YESa | NOb | YESa | NOb | ||
| Alabama | X | Nebraska | X | ||
| Alaska | X | Nevada | X | ||
| Arizona | X | New Hampshire | X | ||
| Arkansas | X | New Jersey | X | ||
| Colorado | X | New Mexico | X | ||
| Connecticut | X | New York | X | ||
| Delaware | X | North Carolina | X | ||
| Florida | X | North Dakota | X | ||
| Georgia | X | Ohio | X | ||
| Hawaii | X | Oklahoma | X | ||
| Idaho | X | Oregon | X | ||
| Illinois | X | Pennsylvania | X | ||
| Indiana | X | Rhode Island | X | ||
| Kansas | X | South Carolina | X | ||
| Kentucky | X | South Dakota | X | ||
| Louisiana | X | Tennessee | X | ||
| Maine | X | Texas | X | ||
| Maryland | X | Utah | X | ||
| Massachusetts | X | Vermont | X | ||
| Michigan | X | Virginia | X | ||
| Minnesota | X | Washington | X | ||
| Mississippi | X | West Virginia | X | ||
| Missouri | X | Wisconsin | X | ||
| Montana | X | TOTAL | 8 | 39 | |
a Yes = Special educators were clearly listed as standards developers in at least one document.
b No = Special educators were not listed in any of the documents, or it was not clear whether they contributed.
Involvement of Special Educators
Few states reported that special educators were involved in the standards writing process. Only 8 of the 47 states (17%) listed special educators as standards developers (see Table 1). This small number must be interpreted with some caution because states often either did not list authors, or did not list authors’ titles or affiliations in their standards documents.
Inclusion of Students with Disabilities
States differed greatly in how they specified whether students with disabilities would be held to the standards. It is difficult to report this information, however, for a variety of reasons. Most states had numerous documents covering different subject areas or different types of skills. These documents are usually written by independent groups of authors who presented the standards in different ways. It was not uncommon for a state to include students with disabilities in the standards documents for several subject areas, and never mention them in other documents. A comprehensive summary of all standards documents and how they dealt with students with disabilities is shown in Appendix B. This information is summarized in Figure 1 and Table 2, which present states’ inclusion of students with disabilities in standards documents on the basis of whether at least one academic area (English, math, social studies, or science) falls into one of four categories: no mention (there is no mention of students with disabilities in the document), "all" students (the document states that "all" students are expected to meet the standards, but does not specify whether it includes students with disabilities), includes students with disabilities (the document states that "all" students includes students with disabilities), and calls for accommodations ("all" students includes students with disabilities and the document calls for accommodations). For Figure 1 and Table 2, states were given credit for credited the most inclusive level (where "no mention" is least inclusive and "calls for accommodations" is most inclusive.)
Figure 1. Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in State Standards Documents
Table 2. Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in State Standards Documents
States |
No Mention | "All" students | "All" students includes students with disabilities | Includes students with disabilities and calls for accommodations |
| Alabama | X | |||
| Alaska | X | |||
| Arizona | X | |||
| Arkansas | X | |||
| Colorado | X | |||
| Connecticut | X | |||
| Delaware | X | |||
| Florida | X | |||
| Georgia | X | |||
| Hawaii | X | |||
| Idaho | X | |||
| Illinois | X | |||
| Indiana | X | |||
| Kansas | X | |||
| Kentucky | X | |||
| Louisiana | X | |||
| Maine | X | |||
| Maryland | X | |||
| Massachusetts | X | |||
| Michigan | X | |||
| Minnesota | X | |||
| Mississippi | X | |||
| Missouri | X | |||
| Montana | X | |||
| Nebraska | X | |||
| Nevada | X | |||
| New Hampshire | X | |||
| New Jersey | X | |||
| New Mexico | X | |||
| New York | X | |||
| North Carolina | X | |||
| North Dakota | X | |||
| Ohio | X | |||
| Oklahoma | X | |||
| Oregon | X | |||
| Pennsylvania | X | |||
| Rhode Island | X | |||
| South Carolina | X | |||
| South Dakota | X | |||
| Tennessee | X | |||
| Texas | X | |||
| Utah | X | |||
| Vermont | X | |||
| Virginia | X | |||
| Washington | X | |||
| West Virginia | X | |||
| Wisconsin | X | |||
| TOTAL | 11 23.4% |
23 48.9% |
4 8.5% |
9 19.1% |
Of the 47 states with standards, 11 (23.4%) did not mention students with disabilities in any of their core subject area documents. Twenty-three states (48.9%) referred to "all" students in at least one of the core subject areas, but did not specifically state that students with disabilities were included. For example, Minnesota’s Profile of Learning stated that the standards "provide consistent and high expectations for all students by detailing what a student should know and be able to do to be highly successful in each subject area" (no page number). Four states (8.5%) specified that "all students" includes students with disabilities, as in New Jersey’s Core Curriculum Content Standards, which stated that "The term all students includes students who are college-bound, career-bound, academically talented, those whose native language is not English, those with disabilities, students with learning deficits, and students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds" (no page number). Nine states (19.1%) specified that students with disabilities are included and also called for accommodations to allow all students the opportunity to reach standards.
One example of the last type of inclusion statement can be found in New York’s Learning Standards (1996). They stated that:
The standards in the framework apply to all students, regardless of their experiential background, capabilities, developmental and learning differences, interests, or ambitions...Students with diverse learning needs may need accommodations or adaptations of instructional strategies and materials to enhance their learning and/or adjust for their learning capabilities. (no page number)
Similarly, Colorado’s Model Content Standards (1995) state that:
‘ALL STUDENTS’ means students from the broad range of backgrounds and circumstances, including disadvantaged students, students with diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, and academically talented students. (no page number)
This document also contains a section about adaptations, accommodations, and modifications for students with disabilities.
Other states were much less clear about which students are expected to meet the standards. The Nevada Elementary Course of Study (1984) stated that it "establishes standards for schools in Nevada to ensure a quality education for every child in the state." It then goes on to say that it "sets standards of achievement for the average child" (p. 1). We thus do not know whether standards are meant for all students or only those who are "average."
Figure 2. Coverage of NCEO Outcome Domains
Breadth of Standards
Representation of NCEO outcome domains in standards documents also differed from state to state. The eight outcome domains include: (1) Presence and Participation, (2) Accommodation and Adaptation, (3) Physical Health, (4) Responsibility and Independence, (5) Contribution and Citizenship, (6) Academic and Functional Literacy, (7) Personal and Social Adjustment, and (8) Satisfaction. Although no states covered all eight domains in their standards documents, 85% (40 states) covered at least six domains (see Figure 2). Not surprisingly, all 47 states had standards covering Academic and Functional Literacy (see Table 3 and Figure 3). There was also strong coverage of Personal and Social Adjustment (45 states), Contribution and Citizenship (45 states), Responsibility and Independence (44 states), and Presence and Participation (43 states). The Physical Health domain was covered in 40 states, while the Accommodation and Adaptation and Satisfaction domains had relatively low coverage (23 states and 2 states, respectively).
States organized standards from the various domains in a number of ways. The Academic and Functional Literacy standards usually fit nicely into sections based on subject area. States differed more in how they dealt with non-academic outcomes. Some avoided them all together, and others integrated the non-academic and academic standards within each subject area. Still others developed separate sets of non-academic standards meant to apply to all subject areas. For example, the Kansas Quality Performance Accreditation (1995) was designed with the idea that students "must have skills such as learning to learn, communicating, complex thinking, problem solving, goal setting, teamwork, and organizational effectiveness, in addition to the traditional essential skills, if they are to be the superior learners we need for Kansas" (p. 4).
Table 3. NCEO Outcomes Domains Reflected in States' Standards
| States | Presence & Participation | Accommodation & Adaptation | Physical Health | Responsibility & Independence | Contribution & Citizenship | Academics & Functional Literacy | Personal & Social Adjustment | Satisfaction |
| Alabama | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Alaska | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Arizona | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Arkansas | x | x | x | x | ||||
| Colorado | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Connecticut | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Delaware | x | x | x | x | x | |||
| Florida | x | x | x | x | x | |||
| Georgia | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Hawaii | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Idaho | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Illinois | x | x | ||||||
| Indiana | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Kansas | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Kentucky | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Louisiana | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Maine | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Maryland | x | x | x | x | ||||
| Massachusetts | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Michigan | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Minnesota | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Mississippi | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Missouri | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Montana | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Nebraska | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Nevada | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| New Hampshire | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| New Jersey | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| New Mexico | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| New York | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| North Carolina | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| North Dakota | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Ohio | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Oklahoma | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Oregon | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Pennsylvania | x | x | x | x | ||||
| Rhode Island | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| South Carolina | x | x | x | x | x | |||
| South Dakota | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Tennessee | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Texas | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Utah | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Vermont | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Virginia | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| Washington | x | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| West Virginia | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Wisconsin | x | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| Total | 43 | 23 | 40 | 44 | 45 | 47 | 45 | 2 |
Note: An x indicates that at least one document contains standards in the outcomes domain.
Figure 3. Numbers of States with Standards Reflecting NCEO Outcomes Domains
Discussion
The standards documents we reviewed varied greatly in terms of size, format, and style. Some presented standards considered mandatory for all districts and classrooms, while others were only suggested guidelines to be used on a voluntary basis. Some states had a single, relatively thin document that contained standards for all subject areas. Others had separate books for standards in each subject area. Some documents were divided by grade, and others included standards for all grades together. States also differed in how they organized standards, and what topics they included. Some were incredibly detailed while others were more general. Even within a single state, standards sometimes varied considerably from subject to subject, since independent committees often wrote the standards for each area. State standards documents were constantly changing as states updated and revised them as part of educational reform. The newer documents tended to be larger and more comprehensive, and also more inclusive of students with disabilities.
Standards documents also differed greatly in how they dealt with students with disabilities. In the descriptions of what standards are and how they should be implemented, many states never mentioned students with disabilities at all, leaving it unclear as to whether these students were expected to achieve the standards. Some states indicated that all students are expected to meet the standards, but never specified whether "all" truly meant "all" students, including those with disabilities. A small percentage of states clearly wrote that students with disabilities are expected to achieve state standards. Some of these states also noted that accommodations or adaptations should be made so that students with disabilities can meet the standards. It should be noted here, however, that we cannot necessarily infer that students with disabilities are not held to standards just because standards documents do not specifically indicate that they are to be included. We know, for example, that all students with disabilities in Kentucky are held to the state standards via their inclusion in the state accountability system (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Erickson, Gabrys, Haigh, Trimble, & Gong, 1996; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Erickson, Haigh, Moody, Trimble, & Insko, 1997), yet this is not reflected either in their mentioning students with disabilities in their standards documents or in their listing special educators as being involved in the development of their standards.
Special educators were not well represented in the standards writing or reviewing process. Very few documents listed special educators in their lists of developers. This suggests that the needs of students with disabilities may not have been adequately considered during standards development. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the extent of special education involvement because many documents either did not list developers at all, or did not list the titles of the participating developers.
States generally did a good job covering a wide range of areas in their standards documents, as measured according to the NCEO outcomes domains. Even if each subject area covered a limited number of outcomes, when we look at state standards across subject areas, most states cover a wide range of outcomes. The lowest representation was in the Satisfaction outcome. Few states indicated in their standards documents that students should be satisfied with their educational experiences. The Accommodation and Adaptation outcome also had relatively low representation in state standards documents. A limited number of states specifically wrote that students should be able to access and use appropriate accommodations or adaptations in order to achieve standards. This is of particular concern when states indicate that standards apply to all students, but do not state that students should be able to use accommodations and adaptations to reach the standards. Students with disabilities may have difficulty reaching standards in the same way or at the same level, but with appropriate accommodations and adaptations, they may be able to work toward and reach the same standards as their peers.
Recommendations
Several recommendations are suggested for improved practice in the development and revision of standards. These are based both on what we found to be practiced in some states and what we know is in alignment with assumptions about inclusive approaches to accountability.
• Standards should apply to all students, including those with disabilities. All students should have the same opportunities to work toward a wide range of standards. Documents should clearly state that standards apply to all students and that the term "all" applies to students with disabilities.
• Standards documents should call for accommodations to make sure that all students are able to reach the standards. Some students may not be able to reach the standards in the same way or at the same level as their peers, but they should be allowed accommodations so they can work toward the same standards. Several states even include special sections in their standards documents about how to make accommodations for students with disabilities.
• Using the NCEO model encourages people to think of standards in a broader sense. Instead of focusing only on functional literacy in core academic subject areas, standards developers look at student success in terms of non-academic outcomes such as presence and participation, contribution and citizenship, and personal and social adjustment. The broad focus of the NCEO model makes it easier to apply standards to all students, including those with disabilities.
• Special educators should be involved in standards development. If standards are to apply to all students, they should be written with all students in mind, including those with disabilities.
• If special educators are included in standards development, their titles should be included in the list of standards developers. If teachers know that special educators were involved in writing or reviewing standards, they may be more likely to hold their students with disabilities to those standards.
Including students with disabilities in standards-setting and revision processes is a key element to their ultimate inclusion in the broader accountability system. Until we are accountable for the learning of all students, standards have little meaning for the accountability system as a whole.
References
AFT (1996). Making standards matter 1996: An annual fifty-state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (1997, June). Your views on national standards. Education Update, 39(4), p. 7.
Business Roundtable. (1996). A business leader’s guide to setting academic standards. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for Policy Research (1996). Issue brief: Standards-based school reform and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Council of the Great City Schools. (1996). Standards and assessment development in the great city schools. Washington, DC: Author.
ECS (1996). Standards & education: A roadmap for state policymakers. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
Geenen, K., Scott, D., Schaefer, R., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1995). Synthesis report update 1994: Reports on the status of education, desired outcomes, and reform initiatives. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Geenen, K., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1995). A disability perspective on five years of education reform (Synthesis Report 22). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Putnam Valley Schools, Developing Educational Standards [On-line]. Available: http://putwest.boces.org/Standards.html.
Setting the standards from state to state. (1995, April 12). Struggling for standards [Special report]. Education Week, 23-35.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Erickson, R. N. (1994a). Educational outcomes and indicators for grade 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Erickson, R. N. (1994b). Educational outcomes and indicators for grade 8. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Erickson, R., Gabrys, R., Haigh, J., Trimble, S., & Gong, B. (1996). A comparison of state assessment systems in Maryland and Kentucky with a focus on the participation of students with disabilities (Maryland-Kentucky Report 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Erickson, R. Haigh, J., Moody, M., Trimble, S., & Insko, B. (1997). Reporting school performance in the Maryland and Kentucky accountability systems: What scores mean and how they are used (Maryland-Kentucky Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Gilman, C. J. (1993a). Educational outcomes and indicators for early childhood (age 3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Gilman, C. J. (1993b). Educational outcomes and indicators for early childhood (age 6). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., and Gilman, C. J. (1993c). Educational outcomes and indicators for individuals at the post-school level. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., & Gilman, C. J. (1993d). Educational outcomes and indicators for students completing school. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Alabama State Department of Education (1997). Alabama Course of Study: Physical Education, Draft.
Alabama State Department of Education (1997). Alabama Course of Study: Health Education, Draft.
Alabama State Department of Education (1997). Alabama Course of Study Mathematics, Draft.
Alabama State Department of Education (1991). Alabama Course of Study: Music Education.
Alabama State Department of Education (1993). Alabama Course of Study: English Language Arts.
Alabama State Department of Education (1992). Alabama Course of Study: Social Studies.
Alabama State Department of Education (1991). Alabama Course of Study: Foreign Languages.
Alabama State Department of Education (1991). Alabama Course of Study: Visual Arts Education.
Alabama State Department of Education (1995). Alabama Course of Study: Science.
Alaska
Alaska Department of Education (1995). Alaska Standards.
Arizona
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Language Arts Standards (Reading and Writing).
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Mathematics Standards.
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Comprehensive Health Education Standards - Draft. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/ch.html
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Physical Activity Standards - Draft. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/ch.html
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Science - Draft. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/science.html
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Workplace Skills Standards - Draft. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/wp.html
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). The Arts Standards, Draft #3.
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Foreign Language Standards, Draft #3.
Arizona State Board of Education (1996). Technology Standards, Draft #3.
Arkansas
Arkansas Department of Education Design Team (1993). The Arkansas English Language Arts and Mathematics Curriculum Frameworks. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Department of Education.
Arkansas Department of Education (1993). Draft of the Arkansas Foreign Language Curriculum Framework. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Department of Education
Arkansas Department of Education (1993). Draft of the Arkansas Reading Curriculum Framework. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Department of Education.
Arkansas Department of Education Design Team (1994). Arkansas Science Curriculum Framework. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Department of Education.
Arkansas Department of Education (1994). 1994 Social Studies Curriculum Framework Draft. In Educational standards and curriculum frameworks from Arkansas [On-line]. Available: http://arkedu.k12.ar.us/user_doc/ade/frame/socials/htm
Colorado
Colorado Model Geography Standards Task Force (1995). Colorado Model Content Standards for Geography.
Colorado Model Mathematics Standards Task Force (1995). Colorado Model Content Standards for Mathematics.
Colorado Model Science Standards Task Force (1995). Colorado Model Content Standards for Science.
Colorado Model History Standards Task Force (1995). Colorado Model Content Standards for History.
Colorado Model Reading and Writing Standards Task Force (1995). Colorado Model Content Standards for Reading and Writing.
Colorado Department of Education (1995). Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Assessments of Content Standards.
Special Populations Task Force, Colorado Department of Education. Standard Based Education—Insuring That All Students Are Part of the Action.
Connecticut
Connecticut State Board of Education (1997). Connecticut’s Common Core of Learning.
Connecticut State Board of Education (1990). "Statewide Educational Goals for Students, 1991-1995" in Guidelines for administering student assessments.
**Connecticut has also published guides to curriculum development in mathematics, language arts, science, health and safety, learning resources and technology, the arts, and social studies. These documents were not reviewed in this study because they do not contain actual standards of what students should know and be able to do. Instead, they give guidelines for curriculum development, and refer to the Common Core of Learning and the Statewide Education Goals for students as the specific skills students should master in the classroom.
Delaware
English Language Arts Framework Commission (1995). New Directions, Delaware First in Education: State of Delaware English Language Arts Curriculum Framework Content Standards. Dover, DE: State of Delaware-Department of Public Instruction.
Mathematics Framework Commission (1995). New Directions, Delaware First in Education: State of Delaware Mathematics Curriculum Framework Content Standards. Dover, DE: State of Delaware-Department of Public Instruction.
Science Framework Commission (1995). New Directions, Delaware First in Education: State of Delaware Science Curriculum Framework Content Standards. Dover, DE: State of Delaware-Department of Public Instruction.
Social Studies Framework Commission (1995). New Directions, Delaware First in Education: State of Delaware Social Studies Curriculum Framework Content Standards. Dover, DE: State of Delaware-Department of Public Instruction.
Florida
Florida Department of Education (1996). Sunshine State Standards (PreK-12 Language Arts, PreK-12 Social Studies, PreK-12 Mathematics, PreK-12 Science, PreK-12 Foreign Languages, PreK-12 Health and Physical Education, PreK-12 The Arts). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.
**The 1996 Sunshine State Standards documents are being used as the current standards documents for Florida. Florida has also published standards in alignment with Goals 2000. In addition, Disability Research Systems published another document outlining modifications to Goal 3 (student performance standards) for students with disabilities. Those two documents are not included in this review.
Georgia
Georgia Department of Education (1988). Quality Core Curriculum. (Dance, drama, English language arts, foreign language, health and safety, mathematics, music, physical education, visual arts, science, social studies, vocational education)
Hawaii
Hawaii Performance Standards [Computer software]
Idaho
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho K-12 Physical Education Content Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho K-12 Mathematics Content Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho K-12 English Language Arts Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho K-12 Science Content Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho K-12 Comprehensive Health Education Content Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho K-12 Social Studies Content Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho K-12 Fine Arts Content Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Idaho State Department of Education. (1994). Idaho Humanities Content Guide and Framework. Boise, ID: Author.
Illinois
Illinois Academic Standards Project. (June, 1996). Preliminary draft: Illinois Academic Standards, for public review and comment. Volume one, state goals 1-10: English language arts and Mathematics. Springfield, IL: Author.
Illinois Academic Standards Project. (June, 1996). Preliminary draft: Illinois Academic Standards, for public review and comment. Volume one, state goals 11-18: Science and Social studies. Springfield, IL: Author.
Illinois Academic Standards Project. (June, 1996). Preliminary draft: Illinois Academic Standards, for public review and comment. Volume one, state goals 19-27: Physical development and health and fine arts. Springfield, IL: Author.
Illinois Academic Standards Project. (June, 1996). Preliminary draft: Illinois Academic Standards, for public review and comment. Volume one, state goals 28-30: Foreign languages and Advisory academic standards. Springfield, IL: Author.
Indiana
Indiana Department of Education (1992). English./Language Arts Proficiency Guide: Essential Skills for Indiana Students.
Indiana Department of Education (1996). The Social Studies Proficiency Guide: An Aid to Curriculum Development [On-line]. Available: http://www.doe.state.in.us/
Indiana Department of Education (1997). The Indiana Science Proficiency Guide—DRAFT: Science in action for all Indiana students [On-line]. Available: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/science/welcome.html
Indiana Department of Education (1997). Mathematics Proficiency Guide [On-line]. Available: http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/publications/index.html
Kansas
Kansas State Board of Education, Outcomes Education Team (1995). Kansas Curricular Standards for Science.
Visual Arts Curriculum Guidelines Committee (1995). Kansas Visual Arts Curriculum Standards. Kansas State Board of Education.
Kansas State Board of Education (1995). Kansas Mathematics Curriculum Standards.
Kansas State Board of Education (1993). Kansas Curricular Standards for Communications.
Kansas State Board of Education (1996). Kansas Curricular Standards for Social Studies.
Kansas State Board of Education (1995). Kansas Quality Performance Accreditation: A Dynamic, Changing Plan for Living, Learning and Working in an International Community.
**This is a separate document, but the standards are meant to cover all areas, and they are printed in all of the subject area standards documents except social studies.
***Note: we did not use any guidelines documents
Kentucky
Kentucky Department of Education (1994). Kentucky’s Learning Goals and Academic Expectations: What Kentucky high school graduates must know and be able to do as they exit public school.
Louisiana
Louisiana Department of Education (1997). Schools That Work: Setting Higher Standards for our Students—Social Studies Content Standards (Draft).
Louisiana Department of Education (1997). Schools That Work: Setting Higher Standards for our Students—Mathematics Content Standards (Draft).
Louisiana Department of Education (1997). Schools That Work: Setting Higher Standards for our Students—English Language Arts Content Standards (Draft).
Louisiana Department of Education (1997). Schools That Work: Setting Higher Standards for our Students—The Arts Content Standards (Draft).
Louisiana Department of Education (1997). Schools That Work: Setting Higher Standards for our Students—Science Content Standards (Draft).
Louisiana Department of Education (1997). Schools That Work: Setting Higher Standards for our Students—Foreign Language Content Standards (Draft).
****There are also 5 Foundation Skills, which are included in all documents, that are supposed to apply to all students in all subject areas
Maine
Commission on Maine’s Common Core of Learning (1990). Maine’s common core of learning: An investment in Maine’s future. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Education.
Maine Department of Education (1996) State of Maine Learning Results—DRAFT. Augusta. Includes "learning results" and "guiding principles" which are skills that apply to all disciplines, and also specific standards in English Language arts, foreign languages, social studies, visual and performing arts, science and technology, health and physical education mathematics, and career preparation.
Maryland
Maryland School Performance Program, Maryland State Department of Education (1990) Learning Outcomes in Mathematics, Reading, Writing/Language Usage, Social Studies and Science for Maryland School Performance Assessment Program [On-line]. Available: http://www.msde.state.md.us/msde/outcomes/out.html
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Department of Education (1994). The Massachusetts Common Core of Learning.
Massachusetts Department of Education (1996). Charting the Course: The Common Chapters.
Massachusetts Department of Education (1996). World Languages Curriculum Framework: Making Connections.
Massachusetts Department of Education (undated). Science & Technology Curriculum Framework: Owning the Question.
Massachusetts Department of Education (1996). Health Curriculum Framework: Building Resilience through Comprehensive Health.
Massachusetts Department of Education (1997). Massachusetts Curriculum Framework: English Language Arts.
Massachusetts Department of Education (undated). Mathematics Curriculum Framework: Achieving Mathematical Power.
Massachusetts Department of Education (undated). Arts Curriculum Framework: The Practice of Creating.
Michigan
Michigan Sate Board of Education (1994). Core Curriculum Content Standards [On-line]. Available: gopher://gopher.mde.state.mi.us:70/60/serv/curric/corecur/core...
Center for Quality Special Education (1989) Special Education Program Outcomes Guide: Hearing Impairment. East Lansing, MI: Center for Quality Special Education.
Center for Quality Special Education (1989) Special Education Program Outcomes Guide: Visual Impairment. East Lansing, MI: Center for Quality Special Education.
Center for Quality Special Education (1992) Special Education Program Outcomes Guide: Learning Disabilities. East Lansing, MI: Center for Quality Special Education.
Center for Quality Special Education (1989) Special Education Program Outcomes Guide: Severe Mental Impairment. East Lansing, MI: Center for Quality Special Education.
Center for Quality Special Education (1990) Special Education Program Outcomes Guide: Speech and Language Impairments. East Lansing, MI: Center for Quality Special Education.
Center for Quality Special Education (1990) Special Education Program Outcomes Guide: Educable Mental Impairment. East Lansing, MI: Center for Quality Special Education.
Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (1997). High Standards in the Profile of Learning, Primary Level, designed for implementation in grades K-3. St. Paul, MN: MN Dept. Of Children, Families and Learning.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (1997). High Standards in the Profile of Learning, Intermediate Level, designed for implementation in grades 4-5. St. Paul, MN: MN Dept. Of Children, Families and Learning.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (1997). High Standards in the Profile of Learning, Middle Level, designed for implementation in grades 6-8. St. Paul, MN: MN Dept. Of Children, Families and Learning.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning (1996). High Standards in the Profile of Learning, High School Level. St. Paul, MN: MN Dept. Of Children, Families and Learning.
Mississippi
Mississippi State Department of Education (1996). Mississippi Fine Arts Framework. Jackson, MS: State Department of Education.
Mississippi State Department of Education (1992). Mississippi Curriculum Structure: Social Studies. Jackson, MS: State Department of Education.
Mississippi State Department of Education (1996). Mississippi Business and Technology Framework. Jackson, MS: State Department of Education.
Mississippi State Department of Education (1995). Mississippi Mathematics Curriculum Structure. Jackson, MS: State Department of Education.
Mississippi State Department of Education (1996). Mississippi Language Arts Framework. Jackson, MS: State Department of Education.
Mississippi State Department of Education (1996). Mississippi Science Framework. Jackson, MS: State Department of Education.
Missouri
Missouri State Board of Education (1996) The Show-Me Standards: Overview of Performance Standards [On-line]. Available: http://services.dese.state.mo.us/standards/process.html
*note: goals (1-4) are standards that "students will demonstrate within and integrate across all content areas."
Montana
Montana Board of Public Education (1993). Montana School Accreditation Standards and Procedures Manual, Appendix A: Model Learner Goals. Helena, Montana: Montana board of Public Education.
Nebraska
Nebraska State Board of Education (1996). Policy Statement and Standards (Draft). Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Education.
Nevada
Nevada Department of Education (1984) Elementary Course of Study. (Includes reading, language arts, social studies mathematics, science, art, music, health, physical education, computer literacy). 1994 update includes mathematics, science, health, 1995 update includes physical education, computer literacy, 1993 update includes technology, 1992 update includes career and occupational guidance and counseling
Nevada Department of Education (date?) Nevada Secondary Course of Study. (Includes arts/humanities, computer education, english, health, mathematics, physical education, science, social studies, art, communicative arts, driver education, foreign languages, music, social studies). 1995 update includes computer education, physical education, 1994 update includes health, science, mathematics,
**Note: only the latest update in each academic area was reviewed.
New Hampshire
The New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program. (1996) [On-line]. Available: http://www.state.ng.us/doe/initi.htm
New Jersey
New Jersey State Board of Education (1996). New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards [On-line]. Available: http://prism.prs.k12.nj.us/www/011/1INT2-96.htm/anchor660077.
New Mexico
New Mexico State Department of Education (1993). Success for ALL students: STANDARDS FOR EXCELLENCE in New Mexico’s Schools: A Major Initiative To Support CITE, A Student Centered Policy Framework for System-Wide Educational Change in New Mexico.
New Mexico State Department of Education, Learning Services Division, School Program and Professional Development Unit (1992). New Mexico Competency Frameworks.
New York
The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for English Language Arts.
The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for the Arts.
The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department (1995). Preliminary Draft Framework for Career Development and Occupational Studies.
The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for Health, Physical Education, and Home Economics.
The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for Social Studies.
The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for Languages other Than English.
The University of the State of New York, The State Education Department (1996). Learning Standards for Mathematics, Science, and Technology.
North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (1995). Standard Course of Study [On-line]. Available: http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/crrclmmtrx.html
North Dakota
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (1996). North Dakota English Language Arts Curriculum Framework, Standards and Benchmarks.
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (1993). North Dakota Curriculum Frameworks, Volume I. (Includes Language Arts, Library media, mathematics, science and social studies)
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (1993). North Dakota Curriculum Frameworks, Volume II. (Includes Arts Education, Business Education, Foreign Language, Health, and Physical Education).
Ohio
Ohio Department of Education (1996). Comprehensive Arts Education: Ohio’s Model Competency-Based Program. Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Department of Education (1994). Social Studies: Ohio’s Model Competency-Based Program. Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Department of Education (1996). Foreign Languages: Ohio’s Model Competency-Based Program. Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Department of Education (1990). Model Competency-Based Mathematics Program. Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio Department of Education (1996). Model Competency-Based Language Arts Program. Columbus, Ohio.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State Department of Education (1993). Priority Academic Student Skills: A Core Curriculum for our Children’s Future.
Oregon
Oregon Department of Education (1996). Adopted Common Curriculum Goals: Content & Performance Standards & Scoring Guides. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Education.
Oregon Department of Education (1994). Certificate of Initial Mastery: Guiding principles, outcomes, extended definitions, glossary of terms, questions most often asked. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Education.
Pennsylvania
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Board of Education (1993) Regulations of the State Board of Education of Pennsylvania. Chapter 5: Curriculum. Section 5.202 Student learning outcomes.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (1996). Literacy for ALL Students: The Rhode Island English Language Arts Framework.
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (1996). Health Literacy for ALL Students: The Rhode Island Health Education Framework.
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (199?). Science Literacy for ALL Students: The Rhode Island Science Framework.
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (1995). Mathematical Power for ALL Students: The Rhode Island Mathematics Framework K-12.
**All documents include the Rhode Island Common Core of Learning, which are learning goals that can be applied to all subject areas.
South Carolina
South Carolina Mathematics Curriculum Framework Writing Team (1993) South Carolina Mathematics Framework. Adopted by: South Carolina State Board of Education.
South Carolina Language Arts Curriculum Framework Writing Team (1996) South Carolina Language Arts Framework. Adopted by: South Carolina State Board of Education.
South Carolina Visual and Performing Arts Curriculum Framework Writing Team (1993) South Carolina Visual and Performing Arts Framework. Adopted by: South Carolina State Board of Education.
South Carolina Science Curriculum Framework Writing Team (1996) South Carolina Science Framework. Adopted by: South Carolina State Board of Education.
South Carolina Foreign Languages Curriculum Framework Writing Team (1993) South Carolina Foreign Languages Framework. Adopted by: South Carolina State Board of Education.
South Dakota
South Dakota Content Standards (1996) in: Communications, Fine Arts, Health, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and World Languages.
Tennessee
State of Tennessee Department of Education (1996). English Language Arts Curriculum Framework: K-12.
State of Tennessee Department of Education (1996). Foreign Languages Curriculum Framework.
State of Tennessee Department of Education (1994). Lifetime Wellness Curriculum Framework: Grades 9-12.
State of Tennessee Department of Education (1991). Mathematics Curriculum Framework: Grades 9-12.
State of Tennessee Department of Education (1993). Physical Education Curriculum Framework: grades 9-12.
State of Tennessee Department of Education (1995). Science Curriculum Framework: Grades kindergarten through grade twelve.
State of Tennessee Board of Education (1996). K-12 Social Studies Curriculum Framework.
State of Tennessee State Department of Education and State Board of Education (1993). Driver and Traffic Safety Education Curriculum Framework.
Texas
Texas Education Agency. "Essential Elements" In Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part II, Ch. 75: Curriculum [On-line]. Available: http://www.tea.state.tx.us:70/sboe/rules/html/ch075toc.htm
Utah
Utah State Board of Education (1990). Core Curriculum: Visual Arts, Grades 7-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1991). Core Curriculum: Language Arts, Grades 7-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1990). Core Curriculum: Music, Grades 7-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1991). Core Curriculum: Science, Grades 7-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1993). Core Curriculum: Responsible Healthy Lifestyles, Grades 7-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1991). Core Curriculum: Mathematics, Grades 7-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1990). Core Curriculum: Social Studies, Grades 7-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1990). Core Curriculum, Grades k-3.
Utah State Board of Education (1990). Core Curriculum, Grades 4-6.
Utah State Board of Education (1991). Core Curriculum: Library Media, Grades K-12.
Utah State Board of Education (1991). Core Curriculum: Information Technology, Grades K-12.
Vermont
Vermont’s Framework: Standards and Learning Opportunities [On-line]. Available: http://www.state.vt.us/educ/stand/page3.htm
Wilhelm, D, ed. Vermont’s Common Core of Learning: The results we need from education. Montpelier, VT: Editing & Design Publication Services.
Virginia
Board of Education, Commonwealth of Virginia (1995). Science Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools.
Board of Education, Commonwealth of Virginia (1995). Mathematics Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools.
Board of Education, Commonwealth of Virginia (1995). History and Social Science Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools.
Board of Education, Commonwealth of Virginia (1995). English Standards of Learning for Virginia Public Schools.
Washington
Washington State Commission on Student Learning (1996-revision A). Essential Academic Learning Requirements: Reading, Writing, Communication, Mathematics. Technical Manual.
Washington State Commission on Student Learning (1996). Essential Academic Learning Requirements: Science, Social Studies, Arts, Health and Fitness. Technical Manual.
West Virginia
West Virginia Department of Education (1992). West Virginia Programs of Study: Instructional Goals and Objectives, Early Childhood Education, K-4.
West Virginia Department of Education (1992). West Virginia Programs of Study: Instructional Goals and Objectives, Middle Childhood Education, 5-8.
West Virginia Department of Education (1992). West Virginia Programs of Study: Instructional Goals and Objectives, Adolescent Education, 9-12.
Wisconsin
WI Department of Public Instruction (1997). Wisconsin’s Academic Content and Performance Standards, 2nd Draft [On-line]. Available: http://badger.state.wi.us/agencies/dpi/standards
WHO WE ARE | PUBLICATIONS | PRESENTATIONS | PROJECTS | RELATED SITES | STAFF | SITE MAP | SEARCH | WHAT'S NEW | NCEO HOME
SPECIAL TOPIC AREAS: ACCOMMODATIONS | ACCOUNTABILITY | ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS | GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS | LEP STUDENTS | OUT-OF-LEVEL TESTING | PARTICIPATION | REPORTING | STANDARDS | UNIVERSAL DESIGN
National Center on Educational Outcomes Web
site: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO
© 2006 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Online Privacy Statement
This page was last updated on Friday, October 27, 2006.
This Web site is produced by the National Center on Educational Outcomes through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G050007) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on LEP students, is provided by other federal and state agencies. Opinions expressed in this Web site do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it.