Abstract
This article reviews current accountability policies pertaining to students who receive special education. The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 contain provisions that mandate the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments and the public reporting of those students' performance along with other important educational outcomes. These new accountability requirements represent a major change from the traditional model of special education accountability that has been focused on system compliance with procedures. The article also discusses the technical, legal, and practical challenges to implementing the new accountability mandates. The authors conclude that despite the unknowns associated with new and more rigorous public scrutiny of special education outcomes, emerging evidence suggests that the changes will result in better educational outcomes for students with disabilities as well as a new, more integrated model for special education.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 431-451 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Educational Policy |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 2003 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:McLaughlin Margaret J. Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth at the University of Maryland Thurlow Martha National Center on Educational Outcomes 09 2003 17 4 431 451 2003 This article reviews current accountability policies pertaining to students who receive special education. The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 contain provisions that mandate the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments and the public reporting of those students' performance along with other important educational outcomes. These new accountability requirements represent a major change from the traditional model of special education accountability that has been focused on system compliance with procedures. The article also discusses the technical, legal, and practical challenges to implementing the new accountability mandates. The authors conclude that despite the unknowns associated with new and more rigorous public scrutiny of special education outcomes, emerging evidence suggests that the changes will result in better educational outcomes for students with disabilities as well as a new, more integrated model for special education. accountability students with disabilities assessment policy hwp-legacy-fpage 431 hwp-legacy-dochead Journal Article Ahearn, E. M. ( 1992 ). Analysis of state compliance monitoring practices. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Ahearn, E. M. ( 2001 ). Performance goals and indicators. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. American Federation of Teachers. ( 1999 ). Making standards matter: An annual fifty-state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: Author. Ballard, J., Ramirez, B. A., & Weintraub, F. J. (Eds.). ( 1982 ). Special education in America: Its legal and government foundations. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Bechard, S. (2001). Models for reporting the results of alternate assessments within state accountability systems (Synthesis Report No. 39). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Bielinski, J., Minnema, J., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A follow-up web-based survey: Test and measurement expert opinions on the psychometric properties of out-of-level tests (Out-of-Level Testing Report No. 7). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Bolt, S., & Callender, S. (2001). On the road to accountability: Reporting outcomes for students with disabilities (Technical Report No. 32). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Brookhart v. Illinois State Board of Education, 697 F. 2d 179 (7th Cir. 1983). Centeron Education Policy. ( 2002 , August). State high school exit exams: A baseline report. Washington, DC: Author. Chapman v. California Department of Education, Order for Preliminary Injunction (No. C 01-01780 CRB, N.D. Calif., February 21, 2002). Available from http://www.dralegal.org Danielson, L. C., & Malouf, D. B. ( 1994 ). Federal policy and educational reform: Achieving better outcomes for students with disabilities. In J. Ysseldyke & M. Thurlow (Eds.), Educational outcomes for students with disabilities (pp. 11 -19). New York: Haworth. Debra P. v. Turlington, 654 F. 2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1981). Education Commission of the States. ( 2001 ). Rewards and sanctions for school districts and schools. Denver, CO: Author. Education Commission of the States. ( 2002 ). State performance indicators. Denver, CO: Author. Education Funding Research Council. (2002, January). Congress orders sweeping changes in Title I. Title I Monitor: Special Issue on the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Thompson Publishing Group. Educational Policy Research Reform Institute (EPRRI). (2002, July). New accountability demands at the local district: What are we learning from EPRRI? Presentation at the Research Project Directors Conference, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Crystal City, VA. Elmore, R., & McLaughlin, M. ( 1982 ). Strategic choice in federal education policy: The compliance-assistance trade-off. In A. Lieberman & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Policymaking in education. Eighty-first yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 159 -194). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C., & Fuhrman, S. H. ( 1996 ). The new accountability in state education policy. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65 -98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Fuhrman, S. H. ( 1999 , January 27). The new accountability (Policy Brief: Reporting Issues in Education Reform). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Gagnon, J. C., McLaughlin, M. J., Rhim, L. M., & Davis, G. A. ( 2002 ). Standards-driven reform policies at the local level: Report on a survey of local special education directors in large districts. Journal of Special Education Leadership , 15 (1), 3 -9. Goertz, M., & Friedman, D. ( 1996 ). State education reform and students with disabilities: A preliminary analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Guy, B., Shin, H., Lee, S. Y., & Thurlow, M. L. (1999). State graduation requirements for students with and without disabilities (Technical Report No. 24). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). ( 1999 ). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. ( 2002 ). Validity in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability scores. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy (pp. 235 -284). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Karger, J., & Pullin, D. ( 2002 , June). Exit documents and students with disabilities: Legal issues (Issue Brief No. 2). College Park: University of Maryland, Educational Policy Research Reform Institute, Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth. Koenig, J. A. (Ed.). ( 2002 ). Reporting test results for students with disabilities and English-language learners, Summary of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Koretz, D., Deibert, E., & Stecher, B. ( 1994 ). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Washington, DC: RAND Institute on Education and Training. Levine, E. L., & Wexler, E. M. (1981). PL 94-142: An act of Congress. New York: Macmillan. Linn, R. L. ( 2000 ). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher , 29 (2), 4 -16. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. ( 2002 ). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher , 31 (6), 3 -16. McDonnell, L., McLaughlin, M. J., & Morison, P. (Eds.). ( 1997 ). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. McLaughlin, M. J. (2002, June). State performance and participation data. Paper presented at the Educational Policy Reform Research Institutes symposium. Available from www.eprri.org McLaughlin, M. J., Henderson, K., & Rhim, L. M. (1997). Reform for all? General and special education reforms in five local school districts. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association annual meeting, Chicago, IL. McLaughlin, M. J., Henderson, K., & Rhim, L. M. ( 1998 ). Snapshots of reform: How five local districts are interpreting standards-based reform for students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform, National Association of State Boards of Education. McLaughlin, M. J., & Tilstone, C. ( 2000 ). Standards and the curriculum: The core of educational reform. In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Educational reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 38 -65). London: Routledge. Muller, E. ( 2002 ). Biennial performance reports: Goals and indicators. Quick turn around. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Project Forum. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). ( 1995 ). Vision for a balanced system of accountability. Alexandria, VA: Author. National Commission on Excellence in Education. ( 1983 ). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. National Council on Disability. ( 1989 ). The education of students with disabilities. Where do we stand? Washington, DC: Author. National Council on Disability. ( 1993 ). Serving the nation's students with disabilities: Progress and prospects. Washington, DC: Author. National Council on Disability. ( 2000 ). Back to school on civil rights. Available from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/backtoschool_1.html Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. ( 2000 ). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Olson, J. F., Jones, I. A., & Bond, L. A. ( 2001 ). State student assessment programs: Annual survey. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Public Agenda. ( 2002 ). When it's your own child: A report on special education from the families who use it. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/specials/specialed/specialed4.htm Quenemoen, R., Rigney, S., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report No. 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Quenemoen, R., & Thurlow, M. ( 2002 ). Including alternate assessment results in accountability decisions (Policy Directions No. 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Regional Resource Center Program. ( 1992 ). Profiles of state monitoring systems. Lexington, KY: Mid-South Regional Resource Center. Rene ex rel. Rene v. Reed, 751 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. App. June 20, 2001). Rhim, L. M., & McLaughlin, M. ( 1997 ). State policies and practices: Where are the students with disabilities? Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform, National Association of State Boards of Education. Shriner, J. G., Danielson, L., & Rouse, M. ( 2000 ). National assessment and special education in the United States and England and Wales: Towards a common system for all? In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 66 -97). London: Routledge. Shriner, J. G., & DeStefano, L. (2001). Curriculum access and state assessment for students with disabilities: A research update. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Kansas City, MO. Smith, S. W. ( 1990 ). Individualized education programs (IEPs) in special education: From intent to acquiescence. Exceptional Children , 51 (2), 6 -14. Stanford Research Institute International. ( 1981 ). Local implementation of P.L. 94-42: Third year report of a longitudinal study. Menlo Park, CA: Author. Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (December, 1999 ). 1999 state special education outcomes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M. L., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report No. 41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S., Thompson, S., & Robey, J. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Report No. 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. 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 No. 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/TechReport25.html Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Lehr, C. (2001). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment and accountability systems (Synthesis Report No. 40). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M., & Wiener, D. ( 2000 ). Non-approved accommodations: Recommendations for use and reporting (Policy Directions No. 11). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M. L., Wiley, H. I., & Bielinsky, 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. Title I: Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, 34 C.F.R. § 200.20 ( 2002 ). U.S. Department of Education. ( 1982 ). Fourth annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law 94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. ( 2002 ). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families (Contract No. ED-02-PO-0791). Washington, DC: Author. Wolf, P. J., & Hassel, B. C. ( 2001 ). Effectiveness and accountability (Part I): The compliance model. In C. E. Finn Jr., A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson Jr., (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 53 -75). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute. Ysseldyke, J., Krentz, J., Elliott, J., Thurlow, M., Erickson, R., & Moore, M. ( 1998 ). NCEO framework for educational accountability. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes Zettle, J. J., & Ballard, J. ( 1977 ) The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142): Its history, origins, and concepts. In J. Ballard, B. A. Ramirez, & F. J. Weintraub (Eds.), Special education in America: Its legal and governmental foundations (pp. 11 -22). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Keywords
- Accountability
- Assessment policy
- Students with disabilities
