School-to-Work Perspectives: When All Means All

School-to-Work Perspectives

Strategies, Practices and Resources to Include Youth

with Disabilities in School-to-Work Systems

Spring 1997

When All Means All

How to Include Students with Disabilities in Accountability Systems

Basic skills, thinking skills, personal qualities, job skills, higher standards-these are the words of school-to-work efforts across the nation. States are forging ahead to develop systems where students, regardless of whether they are college bound or heading directly toward employment, are attaining work-related skills before they exit high school. Challenging and relevant academics, as well as meaningful work-based learning experiences in communities, are the glue of school-to-work efforts. Incumbent on schools and school-to-work efforts is the definition of a system of standards toward which students are to progress, and an accountability system for ensuring that progress is being made toward those standards.

One of the shining aspects of school-to-work efforts is that they are for all students. The effort is not targeted toward one group of students. In fact, it is specifically designed to include all students, including students with disabilities. Like other recent legislation (Goals 2000, Improving America's Schools Act), the School-to-Work Opportunities Act specifically notes that students with disabilities (and other traditionally isolated segments of the student population) must be included. This, in turn, means that students with disabilities must be included in the standards and the accountability system that are integral to school-to-work efforts.

But the question remains: How? The unique learning styles and diverse needs of students with disabilities pose challenges for school-to-work efforts. Consideration must be given to how standards, either academic or vocational in focus, can be made applicable to students with special educational needs. Likewise, assessment designed to measure student progress toward these standards must take into account a wide diversity of student abilities. In this fact sheet, we offer five strategies that will help you to:

· View standards from the perspective of all students,

· Build an aligned assessment system that includes all students,

· Create or revise policies on student participation in assessment,

· Provide testing accommodations for students needing them, and

· Report the results to public or legislative audiences.

Strategies

1. Keep Standards Broad

Academic content or skills standards should be composed to encompass diverse student abilities and performance. States with the greatest success in applying their educational standards to all students have used standards that are constructed in broad terms, with more detailed speciÞcations outlined in curricular guidelines or frameworks. For example, a standard such as "uses work time efÞciently" can be readily applied to virtually all students, including those with very severe disabilities. On the other hand, setting an expectation that all students will "work at a pace equal to or greater than industry standards" may automatically exclude many students from ever reaching the standard. Standards will better serve your efforts when they can be adapted to allow for individualized goals to be established for students of differing abilities.

If you already have your standards in place, however, there are still ways to maximize their relevance to students with disabilities. The Þrst point to

remember is that most students with disabilities should fit within existing standards. Students may need extra supports and specialized instruction, but they should be striving for the same standards as general education students.

2. Think Big When Designing Assessments

Students with disabilities are commonly excluded from assessment programs. This is due to several factors. Many parents and teachers believe that such students have been tested enough through eligibility evaluations and periodic reviews. Others fear the results from these students will "drag down" their school or district performance scores. And many times, testing officials hesitate to adapt the test or testing conditions, in fear of altering the standard conditions under which the test is to be given.

Several of these issues can be resolved by considering students with disabilities in the early stages of test development. Many assessments are tested on populations that do not include students with disabilities. Make sure the items or tasks you are constructing include those in which students with disabilities could readily participate. Keep item difficulty broad so more students can participate. Don't become overly dependent on multiple-choice formats; consider how you might include newer forms of assessment, such as performance assessments, cooperative tasks, or portfolios. Some of these newer forms of assessment promise to be more "user-friendly" for students with disabilities.

It is important to carefully evaluate assessments you might adopt, considering students with disabilities. Similarly, it is important to revise policies to promote participation of students with disabilities in assessments. Specific ways in which to do this are summarized in a recent document produced by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (Elliott, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1996). (See Resources.)

3. Make Sure Policies Get the Point Across

Policies governing which students participate in assessment programs vary greatly among states and school districts. For students with disabilities, these decisions commonly become the responsibility of the parents and professionals who make up the team overseeing the child's Individualized Education Plan (IEP). These teams base their decisions on guidelines spelled out in school district or state policies. In some cases these policies may suggest exempting students based on the categorical labels assigned to their disabilities, where they receive instruction, or on whether they have had the opportunity to learn the content or skills covered by the test.

We suggest reviewing your current assessment policies to make sure that students with disabilities are not being readily excluded from school-to-work assessment practices. Make sure students are not being excluded from assessment opportunities solely on the basis of their disability category or their educational setting. If participation is based on exposure to the curriculum or training covered by the test, encourage IEP teams to consider two questions before exempting any student: first, why hasn't the student been afforded the learning opportunities afforded to other students, and second, if the student is in a different curriculum, how will our school or school district remain accountable for his or her progress?

4. Use Accommodations to Level the Playing Field

Measuring the progress of some of your students will be enhanced through the use of testing accommodations, those additional strategies or technologies that are provided to students to compensate for the effect of their disabilities in assessment situations. Common examples include large print or Braille testing booklets for students with visual impairments.

Accommodations can be categorized as belonging to one of four types: (1) presentation (e.g., tape recorded test directions); (2) response (e.g., marking answers directly in test booklet); (3) timing or scheduling (e.g., administering the test over several sessions rather than one lengthy session); or (4) setting (e.g., administering the test to a small group or an individual). Their use is not intended to give unfair advantage to any student, but instead is meant to "level the playing field" for those students whose disabilities may interfere with their ability to demonstrate their true knowledge or skill level. Typically, accommodations chosen for a student should be those already provided in his or her instructional setting.

Accommodation policies differ significantly from state to state, with some policies allowing certain accommodations that others strictly forbid (Elliott, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1996). In many cases, states have disallowed accommodations without knowing whether they have any impact on the validity and reliability of the test. Take time to review your own policies on testing accommodations with the following questions in mind:

· Do testing policies clearly state which accommodations are permitted, and for which assessments?

· Are decisions about testing accommodations being made by those who know the student best, and are these decisions being documented?

· Do policies address the use of all types of accommodations, including those related to presentation, response, timing, and setting?

· Do policies stipulate that accommodations used during assessment be those that are also used during instruction?

· If certain accommodations are currently prohibited, is there adequate research and justification for doing so?

5. Take Roll Call Before Reporting Results

How will you know if your school-to-work efforts are working? The answer depends on your ability to collect valid and reliable information on students' knowledge and skill development. To evaluate how well your overall school-to-work system is serving all students, you will need to rely on strategies of data collection and analysis that include all students.

Unfortunately, approaches to analyzing and reporting assessment results often exclude many students with disabilities, with exclusion happening at many different stages. In some situations, students with disabilities may be exempted from the testing situation altogether. In other cases, students with disabilities are permitted to participate, but their scores are not aggregated with those of students in general education. Instead, they may be either reported in separate reports or not used at all. With policies differing among schools, districts, and states, comparability of school or district performance becomes problematic whenever the results do not reflect the performance of all students.

Care should be taken when interpreting or reporting the results of any assessment used in your school-to-work efforts. Inquire as to how many students were excluded from participation, and the reasons for these exemptions. Be sure that any report comparing programs, schools, or districts includes information on the numbers of students not included. Ask for performance data to be disaggregated as well, to compare and understand differences between the progress of students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities.

Practices

Two States Where All Means All

When talking about success in building completely inclusive accountability systems, two states are probably mentioned more frequently than any others: Kentucky and Maryland. Both of these states have taken the approach that schools and school districts must account for the success of all their students, and therefore must report on the performance of all students. In fact, each state has adopted the use of an alternative assessment used only with a very small percentage of the students. This alternative assessment ensures that youth with severe disabilities are included in the accountability system. These examples of inclusive accountability systems have significant consequences for schools based on the academic performance of their students, along with other indicators of success, including increased graduation rates and decreased dropout or retention rates.

Kentucky is a recognized leader in the development of student assessment and accountability systems, and has been featured in several national reports as an excellent example of state-level educational reform. The basis for the massive reform found in this state was the Kentucky Educational Reform Act (KERA) of 1990, which led to the virtual rebuilding of the state's entire educational system. As a part of this reform, the Kentucky Instructional Results and Information System (KIRIS) was implemented, a statewide system of assessment and school accountability based on the performance of students. The KIRIS system uses portfolios, performance events, and open-ended questions in the areas of reading, mathematics, science, social studies, and writing at various grade levels. Students deemed incapable of participating in these assessments are expected to participate in the Alternate Portfolio Assessment Program (APAP). These students are generally those who have moderate to severe cognitive disabilities that prevent them from completing a regular course of study even with program modifications. Limits are placed on the number of students that any school can place into this alternative testing program, and scores from students taking the alternate portfolio are weighted equally with those of students participating in the regular assessment. Student performance results are used to construct index scores that measure a school and district's progress. A system of sanctions and rewards has been developed to reward schools that meet or exceed their anticipated progress, and to assist those schools that fall short of their goals.

Maryland is noted for its leadership in using performance assessment as part of a large-scale assessment program. The state also is known for its attention to maintaining psychometric integrity through its publishing of annual reports on school and district performance. Special education has had a major part in the development of the state's assessments, insofar as the state educational agency expects all students to be tested. Because it became concerned about even the limited number of students being exempted, Maryland's Department of Education developed (and is currently field testing) an alternate assessment for students not participating in the regular assessment. This performance-based assessment, called the Independence Mastery Assessment Program (IMAP) measures student progress in independent living and other functional skill areas.

Resources

The following publications may be helpful in the inclusion of students with disabilities in your system of school-to-work standards or assessments.

Elliott, J. (1996, Dec.). Accounting for students with disabilities. School Administrator, 53 (11), 24-26.

Elliott, J., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1996). Assessment guidelines that maximize the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: Characteristics and considerations (Synthesis Report 25). Minneapolis, MN: University of MN, National Center for Educational Outcomes.

Erickson, R. (1997). Questions in an era of accountability. Washington, DC: Federal Resource Center.

Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform. (1996, June). Standards-based school reform and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform. (1996, September). Standards-based education reform for all students. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1996). Neglected numerators, drifting denominators, and fractured fractions: Determining participation rates for students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs (Synthesis Report 23). Minneapolis, MN: University of MN, National Center for Educational Outcomes.

Shriner, J.G., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (1994, January). Standards for all American students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26 (5).

Thurlow, M., Olsen, K., Elliott, J., Ysseldyke, J., Erickson, R., & Ahearn, E. (1996). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities (National Center for Educational Outcomes Policy Directions 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of MN, National Center for Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J., & Thurlow, M. (1994). Guidelines for inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (National Center for Educational Outcomes Policy Directions 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of MN, National Center for Educational Outcomes.

We'd like to thank Ron Erikson, Research Associate and Martha Thurlow, Assistant Director of the National Center for Educational Outcomes at the University of Minnesota for writing this issue. To contact the authors, call NCEO at (612) 626-1530 or visit their website (click above).

URL: http://ici2.umn.edu/ntn/pub/perspectives/spring97