Jl. Elliott et al., State-level accountability for the performance of students with disabilities: Five years of change?, J SPEC EDUC, 34(1), 2000, pp. 39-47
Along with the dramatic expansion of assessment activities during this deca
de, there has been increased use of state-level assessments as accountabili
ty tools. The extent to which students with disabilities have been included
in state-level accountability, however, is questionable. This study examin
ed changes that have taken place over 5 years in four aspects of state acco
untability practices involving students with disabilities: (a) the number o
f states using data on students with disabilities for state-level accountab
ility and the nature of their accountability systems, (b) the existence of
state policies on allowable accommodations and adaptations in assessments,
(c) information on the rates of participation of students with disabilities
in state-level assessments, and (d) the availability of data on students w
ith disabilities in state-level accountability systems. Information was col
lected from all 50 states, plus the 9 educational units whose special educa
tion students were supported by the U.S. Office of Special Education Progra
ms (e.g., Bureau of Indian Affairs, District of Columbia, Marshall Islands,
Puerto Rico) in both 1991 and 1995. The results indicated that there have
been dramatic increases in the number of states that indicate they use data
from students with disabilities on school participation, exit, and achieve
ment in their state accountability systems and in the number of states with
written guidelines on the use of accommodations in state assessments. In c
ontrast, states seem to have changed little in their specific knowledge abo
ut the participation rates of students with disabilities in assessments, al
though it appears that, when students are included in assessments, their da
ta now are more likely to be accessible than 5 years ago. The implications
of these findings for future efforts to include students with disabilities
in state accountability systems are explored.