1999 State Special Education Outcomes:
A Report on State Activities at the End of the Century
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
December 1999
Prepared by: Sandra Thompson • Martha Thurlow
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1999). 1999 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the end of the century. 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/99StateReport.htm./
Executive Summary
The 1999 National Survey of State Directors of Special Education is the seventh in a series of surveys that have been conducted by NCEO since 1991. This year’s findings include:
- More students with disabilities are participating in statewide testing, and states are better at documenting actual numbers participating. Still, only 23 states actually provided participation data. The variability in participation and accommodation rates is striking, but these differences may reflect differences in definitions.
- High stakes attached to school or district performance and lack of exposure of students with disabilities to test content are factors that inhibit greater participation of students with disabilities in assessment systems.
- Most states are in the process of developing their alternate assessments. Expected rates of students unable to participate in regular assessments varies considerably in the 29 states ready to make predictions, implying that there will also be large variations in alternate assessment participation rates.
- Test results are used primarily for guiding statewide policy decisions, decisions to reform schools, and decisions about individual students. Yet, about one-third of states use the results in informal ways, often as a result of parent and community pressure.
- Strategies used most often by states to meet the assessment provisions of IDEA are training and the dissemination of written policies. Greatest needs for training involve clarifying how student goals are aligned with state standards, and defining performance standards for students with disabilities.
- State special education involvement in standards-based reform is highest for practices directly related to students with disabilities, such as aggregating results of alternate assessments with general assessment results. There is little involvement when the inclusion of students with disabilities is seen as detrimental, such as when there are rewards and sanctions for accountability results.
- Lack of resources and inadequate assessments are seen as the greatest barriers to obtaining educational accountability information on students with disabilities.
- Best practice information continues to lead the list of preferred technical assistance, but the desire for obtaining information from the Internet has soared since 1997.
These findings highlight the current status of students with disabilities at the end of a century marked by dramatic changes in measuring the outcomes of education for students with disabilities. The findings reinforce the need to continue to survey state directors of special education about the status of state special education outcomes.
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). Part of NCEO’s mission is to provide 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 is working toward four goals for students with disabilities:
Goal 1: Students with disabilities will be a part of nationally-initiated educational reforms.
Goal 2: Students with disabilities will be a part of each state’s standards-based educational reform efforts.
Goal 3: Students with disabilities will be included in national educational data collection efforts.
Goal 4: Students with disabilities will be included in national and state level reporting of educational outcomes, with results that can be disaggregated.
Many NCEO activities promote these goals. In addition to its national survey, NCEO is working with its partners to provide needed information and support to state education agencies seeking to include students with disabilities in their efforts to provide better educational outcomes to all students.
The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. It is supported through a cooperative agreement (#H159C50004) with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Opinions or points of view expressed within this document do not necessarily represent those of the Department or the Offices within it.
- NCEO
- 350 Elliott Hall
- 75 E. River Road
- Minneapolis, MN 55455
- 612/624-8561 • Fax: 612/624-0879 • http://www.coled.umn.edu/nceo
- The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
- NCEO Core Staff
- John S. Bielinski
- Robert H. Bruininks
- Jane L. Krentz
- Camilla A. Lehr
- Michael L. Moore
- Rachel F. Quenemoen
- Dorene L. Scott
- Sandra J. Thompson
- James E. Ysseldyke
- NCEO Director:
- Martha Thurlow
Acknowledgments
Many individuals provided input on both the content and format of this 1999 Special Education Outcomes document. NCEO especially expresses its appreciation to the state directors of special education and their staff who volunteered a portion of their valuable time in addressing the survey questions. In addition, 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;
• Joshua Davis, on-line survey design and maintenance;
• John Bielinski, data analyst for the National Center on Educational Outcomes; and
• Michael Moore, publications director for the National Center on Educational Outcomes.
State Special Education Outcomes 1999 was prepared by Sandra Thompson and Martha Thurlow, with support from research assistant Stacy Callender.
Overview of 1999 Survey
The National Center on Educational Outcomes has been surveying state directors of special education about efforts to include students with disabilities in education reform since 1991. At that time, most state directors of special education were just beginning to think about how students with disabilities fit into emerging educational reforms. Little did anyone realize the incredible magnitude of education reform efforts that would take place over the next eight years, at local, state, and national levels.
In 1997 the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) sparked educational reform in special education. As a result of changes in the Act, educational results for students receiving special education services now must be as public as they are for other students. This means that states must define performance goals and indicators for themselves, and one of the indicators must be the performance of students with disabilities on state and district assessments. Students with disabilities must be included in state and district assessments, with accommodations as appropriate, or in an alternate assessment when they are not able to participate in the general assessment. Their performance on these measures is to be reported in the same way and with the same frequency as the performance of other students is reported.
IDEA 97 is not an isolated law. Its push for educational accountability is evident in other laws as well. The Improving America’s Schools Act, for example, requires that the performance of students with disabilities be disaggregated so that Title I reforms can be targeted toward the needs of these students as well as toward the needs of other students. Other laws, such as Goals 2000: Educate America Act and the School to Work Opportunities Act also solidify the push to recognize that students with disabilities are part of the educational system and that states and districts must be accountable for their learning as well. All in all, there has been a clear directive that the public needs to know, and has a right to know, about the performance of students receiving special education services.
As we produce this first report since the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA, we look at the key elements contained in IDEA. Yet, we also attempt to understand the pressures and barriers that affect state activities during this period of change. We give states the opportunity to report on the planning, development, and implementation of their accountability systems. And, we once again gather information on technical assistance needs so that states can better move forward in their efforts to meet the mandates of educational reform and at the same time do what is best for the children served by special education programs.
The 1999 Special Education Outcomes survey focuses on the implications of educational reform within the context of the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Results are presented in six sections:
- Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing
- State Activities in Developing Alternate Assessments
- Reporting and Using Assessment Results
- Individualized Education Programs and Assessments
- Standards-based Reform
- Current Issues and Technical Assistance Needs
Participants in the 1999 survey included state directors of special education
from all 50 states and 11 unique states that abide by the provisions of IDEA. Responses to the survey were gathered on-line for the first time, or by fax or mail for those without Internet access. Some state directors designated other state officials to complete the survey, and some surveys were completed by multiple respondents, including state assessment personnel. Once compiled, drafts of tables were sent to state directors for verification. Several directors made changes in their responses and faxed them back to NCEO. Overall, responses were obtained from 48 of the 50 states and from the U.S. Virgin Islands.
- Eleven Unique States
- American Samoa
- Bureau of Indian Affairs
- (BIA)
- Department of Defense
- District of Columbia
- Guam
- Mariana Islands
- Marshall Islands
- Micronesia
- Palau
- Puerto Rico
- U.S. Virgin Islands
The Context of Reform
Table 1 displays the number of students with disabilities, ages 6 to 17 years, served under the provisions of IDEA during the 1996-97 school year (see third column). It also shows in the last column what percentages these totals represent when compared to the total estimated resident population of students 6-17 years old (from second column). State special education populations differ in their proportion to the overall student populations because of a variety of factors, including differences among states in their eligibility requirements for receiving special education services.
Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special Education Services for the 1996-97 School Year
Name of State |
Estimated Resident Population for Children |
Number of Children Served Under IDEA (Ages 6-17) 2 |
Percent of All Children Served Under IDEA |
| Alabama | 719,328 |
84,406 |
11.73% |
| Alaska | 123,975 |
15,056 |
12.14% |
| Arizona | 738,684 |
68,403 |
9.26% |
| Arkansas | 447,838 |
45,050 |
10.06% |
| California | 5,548,936 |
505,936 |
9.12% |
| Colorado | 671,575 |
61,146 |
9.10% |
| Connecticut | 527,690 |
69,883 |
13.24% |
| Delaware | 115,806 |
13,190 |
11.39% |
| Florida | 2,262,861 |
293,033 |
12.51% |
| Georgia | 1,287,524 |
122,307 |
9.50% |
| Hawaii | 196,244 |
14,965 |
7.63% |
| Idaho | 239,941 |
21,213 |
8.84% |
| Illinois | 2,054,925 |
228,834 |
11.14% |
| Indiana | 1,005,325 |
119,308 |
11.87% |
| Iowa | 499,544 |
58,943 |
11.80% |
| Kansas | 470,136 |
46,744 |
9.94% |
| Kentucky | 656,613 |
66,902 |
10.19% |
| Louisiana | 837,677 |
78,554 |
9.38% |
| Maine | 212,162 |
27,838 |
13.12% |
| Maryland | 848,851 |
91,017 |
10.72% |
| Massachusetts | 945,688 |
136,577 |
14.44% |
| Michigan | 1,720,585 |
165,784 |
9.64% |
| Minnesota | 863,512 |
86,191 |
9.98% |
| Mississippi | 510,179 |
56,585 |
11.09% |
| Missouri | 949,395 |
111,331 |
11.73% |
Table 1. Frequency and Percentage of State Student Populations Receiving Special Education Services for the 1996-97 School Year (continued)
| Name of State | Estimated Resident Population for Children (Ages 6-17) 1 |
Number of Children Served Under IDEA (Ages 6-17) 2 |
Percent of All Children Served Under IDEA (Ages 6-17) 3 |
| Montana | 165,074 |
16,086 |
9.74% |
| Nebraska | 305,230 |
35,120 |
11.51% |
| Nevada | 268,132 |
25,761 |
9.61% |
| New Hampshire | 203,891 |
22,845 |
11.20% |
| New Jersey | 1,293,988 |
176,576 |
13.65% |
| New Mexico | 336,994 |
42,524 |
12.62% |
| New York | 2,938,973 |
339,892 |
11.56% |
| North Carolina | 1,212,477 |
132,295 |
10.91% |
| North Dakota | 118,783 |
10,967 |
9.23% |
| Ohio | 1,929,434 |
195,556 |
10.14% |
| Oklahoma | 604,777 |
65,206 |
10.78% |
| Oregon | 552,251 |
55,759 |
10.10% |
| Pennsylvania | 1,969,268 |
183,471 |
9.32% |
| Rhode Island | 158,229 |
22,810 |
14.42% |
| South Carolina | 628,881 |
77,098 |
12.26% |
| South Dakota | 142,091 |
12,268 |
8.63% |
| Tennessee | 882,139 |
109,041 |
12.36% |
| Texas | 3,552,482 |
405,491 |
11.41% |
| Utah | 453,896 |
46,673 |
10.28% |
| Vermont | 103,207 |
10,034 |
9.72% |
| Virginia | 1,081,618 |
125,065 |
11.56% |
| Washington | 969,424 |
90,630 |
9.35% |
| West Virginia | 292,704 |
39,943 |
13.65% |
| Wisconsin | 934,624 |
91,385 |
9.78% |
| Wyoming | 95,323 |
10,797 |
11.33% |
1
Data taken from Table AF4 published in Twentieth Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 1998).2
Data taken from Table AA1 published in Twentieth Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 1998).3
Data taken from Table AA10 published in Twentieth Annual Report to Congress (U.S. Department of Education, 1998).
Figure 1 shows changes in populations of students receiving special education services from 1990 to 1997. While there has been an increase in 34 states and a decrease in 16 states, the percentages of change are generally quite small. Thus, special education populations continue to show tremendous variations from one state to another, but changes over time are relatively small.
Figure 1. Change in Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services from 1990 to 1997
Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Testing
The extent to which students with disabilities are participating in statewide testing has increased and also become more measurable since NCEO began asking states to provide data on student participation in assessments. Participation data previously were largely inaccessible or unavailable to most state directors of special education. The 1995 NCEO survey noted that few state directors knew whether test scores for students with disabilities could be disaggregated from assessment databases. Even when the data were available, most states had not attempted to disaggregate data on students with disabilities.
This year, NCEO again asked for data on the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments. As in the 1997 report, state directors were asked to indicate whether the following kinds of data are available for one or more of their statewide assessments:
- Number of students receiving special education services tested.
- Number of students receiving special education services excluded or exempted from testing.
- Percentage of test takers who received special education services.
- Percentage of all students receiving special education services at the grade or age level tested who were actually assessed.
The responses of individual states are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Primary Participation Data Available
A total of 45 states indicated that they have data on the number of students with disabilities tested. This information is required by the 1997 amendments to IDEA. Five regular states and all unique states appeared not to have information on the number of students with disabilities tested. One of these states (Nebraska) does not administer statewide tests, so it would not be expected to have data on the number of students taking the state assessment. The four other regular states without an indication that they had participation data either had not responded to this item (Alaska, Colorado) or they had not responded to the survey (Illinois, Maine).
Several states also collect or receive participation data in other ways than simply the number tested. Approximately equal numbers of states, but not necessarily the same ones, have data on exemptions or exclusions, and percentage information.
Some students are recognized as having disabilities under another federal law—Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Data on 504 students participating in testing and other types of participation data are available somewhat sporadically among the states (see Table 3). For example, data on how many 504 students participate in testing are available in just 18 states, and other kinds of participation data are available in 12 states. These other data include the number of students using testing accommodations.
Table 3: Other Participation Data and 504 Participation Data Available
| Regular States |
504 Plans |
Other Measures of Participation |
Description of Other Data |
| Alabama | n | n | "Other" not defined |
| Alaska* | |||
| Arizona | |||
| Arkansas | |||
| California | |||
| Colorado* | |||
| Connecticut | |||
| Delaware | |||
| Florida | n | n | "Other" not defined |
| Georgia | n | ||
| Hawaii | |||
| Idaho | |||
| Illinois* | |||
| Indiana | n | n | Number of students receiving accommodations |
| Iowa | |||
| Kansas | |||
| Kentucky | n | n | Types of accommodations, number testing with and without accommodations, number participating in alternate portfolio |
| Louisiana | n | ||
| Maine* | |||
| Maryland | n | n | Number of students/types of accommodations, number of students alternately assessed |
| Massachusetts | n | Pre-test files, post-test files, results | |
| Michigan | n |
Table 3: Other Participation Data and 504 Participation Data Available (continued)
| Regular States |
504 Plans |
Other Measures of Participation | Description of Other Data |
| Minnesota | n | ||
| Mississippi | |||
| Missouri | n | ||
| Montana | |||
| Nebraska | |||
| Nevada | n | ||
| New Hampshire | n | Number of students with limited English proficiency | |
| New Jersey | n | ||
| New Mexico | n | Number of special education test takers with and without modifications | |
| New York | n | Disaggregate results for students receiving consultant teacher, resource room, or related services, and results for students receiving special class services | |
| North Carolina* | |||
| North Dakota | n | ||
| Ohio | n | Information presented by 4-6-9-10-12 grades and by proficiency area | |
| Oklahoma | |||
| Oregon | |||
| Pennsylvania | |||
| Rhode Island | n | ||
| South Carolina | n | ||
| South Dakota | n | n | Number of students participating with accommodations |
| Tennessee | |||
| Texas | n | "Other" not defined | |
| Utah | |||
| Vermont | n | ||
| Virginia | |||
| Washington | |||
| West Virginia | |||
| Wisconsin | |||
| Wyoming | n | ||
| Unique States* | |||
| American Samoa | |||
| Bureau of Indian Affairs | |||
| Department of Defense | |||
| District of Columbia | |||
| Guam | |||
| Mariana Islands | |||
| Marshall Islands | |||
| Micronesia | |||
| Palau | |||
| Puerto Rico | |||
| U.S. Virgin Islands | |||
| Totals | 18 |
12 |
|
State directors also were asked how participation rates were calculated in their most recent statewide assessment. Of the 31 states whose directors had reported that the state calculated test participation rates for students receiving special education services, 10 indicated that the calculations were completed at the local level by having schools turn in all of their test forms, including those for students who were not tested. Participation is calculated by dividing the number of completed test forms by the total number of test forms (including those that are blank). Most of the remaining states (14 of 21) divide the number of test takers by the state/federal child count that is reported December 1. Other states gave answers that did not indicate which calculation method they used. States have found distinct advantages and disadvantages with each of these models, as shown in Table 4. Interestingly, a few additional states indicated how they would calculate these rates even though they had indicated they did not do so. These states were fairly evenly split between those using local counts and those using state/federal child count data.
Table 4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Counting Students Locally on Test Day Versus Using the Federal Child Count
Count students locally on test day |
Use federal child count |
|
| Advantages | Do not have to worry about inaccuracies resulting from time between enrollment count and test. | Numbers are used to determine state and federal funding, so underreporting is unlikely. |
| Disadvantages | Count may be inaccurate due to errors by local test administrators. Some students are unaccounted for – they are eligible for testing, but are not tested. |
Several months may pass between child count and test, leaving room for error due to students entering and leaving school system. Child count is generally reported by student age, not grade (tests are given by grade, not age). |
State directors reported encountering a variety of difficulties in the calculation of test participation rates of students receiving special education services. Only two state directors reported having no problems calculating these participation rates. Other states reported four primary challenges:
- Data currently are collected on students with disabilities by age and not by grade placement (15 states).
- Total number of students is determined by number of test forms turned in and may over-exclude students—test scores are not connected to demographic data about individual students at the state level (9 states).
- Coding test forms so students with disabilities could be identified and disaggregated is difficult (8 states).
- State enrollment is calculated in the fall and tests are given in the spring, causing discrepancies due to student movement in and out of school/state, and changes in student eligibility status.
Each year, NCEO asks states to provide actual participation frequency data for the most recent assessment for which data are available. In the past, most states have been able to provide only estimates of the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments. In 1997, prior to the reauthorization of IDEA, 15 states provided actual participation numbers. In 1999, 23 states provided these data, but the states were not necessarily the same ones. The states providing participation data in 1999 are listed in Table 5, along with those states that provided data in 1997.
Table 5. States with Data on the Number of Students with Disabilities Participating in State Assessments
1997 |
1999 |
|
|
Although the federal requirement is for states to report the number of students with disabilities participating in state and district assessments, percentages are most useful for policymakers evaluating the inclusiveness of assessment programs. Using state-provided numbers of students participating in assessments and child count data, participation rates were calculated for specific administrations of state tests. These estimated rates are contained in Table 6. Rates of participation vary from less than one-fourth of students with disabilities to all students with disabilities.
Table 6. Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Participated in State Assessments*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6. Percent of Students Receiving Special Education Services Who Participated in State Assessments* (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|