Federal legislation requires states to publicly report on the participation and performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments. Publicly reporting this information means that it will be more accessible to educators and laypeople, and it can be used in evaluating educational programs for and assessing the progress of this subgroup. In this study, the authors collected disability subgroup assessment information reported by the 50 states for both the 2000—2001 and 2001—2002 school years, essentially establishing a baseline for No Child Left Behind disability subgroup reporting. They examined the information that was publicly reported for general and alternate assessments. In 2001— 2002, 48 states reported either participation or performance information for students with disabilities on at least one state assessment. However, only 35 states reported both participation and performance for all of their assessments, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achieve. (2004a). Do graduation tests measure up? A closer look at state high school exit exams . Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Achieve. (2004b). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M.L., Callender, S., & Bolt, S. (2001). On the road to accountability: Reporting outcomes for students with disabilities (Technical Report 32). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
4.
Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the capital to the classroom: Year 2 of the No Child Left Behind Act . Washington, DC: Author.
5.
Cibulka, J.G., & Derlin, R.L. (1995). State educational performance reporting policies in the U.S.: Accountability's many faces. (ERIC Abstract ED 401 613)
6.
Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Thor, K. (1995). 1994 state special education outcomes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
7.
Erickson, R., Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1997). Neglected numerators, drifting denominators, and fractured fractions: Determining participation rates for students with disabilities . Diagnostique, 23(2), 105—115.
8.
Fast, E.F., Blank, R.K., Potts, A., & Williams, A. (2002). A guide to effective accountability reporting . Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
9.
Koenig, J.A. (2002). Reporting test results for students with disabilities and English-language learners: Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2001). The performance of students with disabilities of New York's revised Regents Comprehensive Examination in English (CSE Technical Report 540). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11.
McGrew, K.S., Thurlow, M.L., Shriner, J.G., & Spiegel, A. N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
12.
McGrew, K.S., Thurlow, M.L., & Spiegel, A.N. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 339—352.
13.
National Research Council. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide for states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
Shriner, J.G., & Thurlow, M.L. (1992). State special education outcomes 1991. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
15.
Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Lazarus, S. (2001). Reporting on the state assessment performance of students with disabilities (Topical Review No. 3). College Park: University of Maryland, Education Policy Reform Research Institute.
16.
Thurlow, M., Elliott, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
17.
Thurlow, M.L., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodations policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update (Synthesis Report 33). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
18.
Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K.L., Nelson, J.R., Shin, H., & Coleman, J.E. (1998). State accountability reports: What are states saying about students with disabilities? (Technical Report 20). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
19.
Thurlow, M.L., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2000). Where's Waldo? A third search for students with disabilities in state accountability reports (Technical Report 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
20.
Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Lehr, C. (2001). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment and accountability systems (Synthesis Report 40). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21.
Thurlow, M.L., & Thompson, S.J. (1999). District and state standards and assessments: Building an inclusive accountability system. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 12, 3—10.
22.
Thurlow, M.L., & Wiley, H.I. (2004). Almost there in public reporting of assessment results for students with disabilities (Technical Report 39). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
Thurlow, M., Wiley, H.I., & Bielinski, J. (2003). Going public: What 2000—2001 reports tell us about the performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 35) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
24.
Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Silverstein, B. (1995). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Journal ofRemedial and Special Education, 16, 260—270.
25.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Peer reviewer guidance for evaluating evidence of final assessments under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
26.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Report cards: Title I, Part A: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
27.
Ysseldyke, J., & Bielinski, J. (2002). Effect of different methods of reporting and reclassification on trends in test scores for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 68, 189—200.
28.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Technical Report 23). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
29.
Zlatos, B. (1994). Don't test, don't tell: Is “academic red-shirting” skewing the way we rank our schools?The American School Board Journal, 181, 24—28.
