state accountability reports: what are states saying about

65
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 425 586 EC 306 926 AUTHOR Thurlow, Martha L.; Langenfeld, Karen L. H.; Nelson, J. Ruth; Shin, Hyeonsook; Coleman, JoAnne E. TITLE State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about Students with Disabilities? Technical Report 20. INSTITUTION National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.; Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Alexandria, VA. SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC. PUB DATE 1998-05-00 NOTE 88p.; For an earlier, shorter version of this report, see ED 419 323. CONTRACT H159C5004 AVAILABLE FROM National Center on Education Outcomes, University of Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455; Tel: 612-624-8561; Fax: 612-624-0879; Web site: http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCE0 ($15). PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Accountability; *Data Collection; *Disabilities; Educational Assessment; Elementary Secondary Education; Input Output Analysis; *Outcomes of Education; School Effectiveness; Special Education; *State Programs; Student Evaluation; Student Participation ABSTRACT This report summarizes a study that analyzed the inclusion of students with disabilities in the accountability systems of 48 state education accountability reports and that of Washington, D.C. Extreme variability was found to exist in the reporting practices across states and there was little information on students with disabilities. Eleven states included test-based outcome data for students with disabilities in their reports and only five states produced a separate special education report. Many states include input/context and/or process indicators for students with disabilities, but few reported outcome data for these students. Finally, every state was unclear on at least one educational indicator in their accountability system and whether students with disabilities were included. The report contains the following recommendations about reporting on students with disabilities: (1) be clear about the role of students with disabilities in data and standards; (2) while special education reports can be useful in providing detailed information about students with disabilities, general accountability reports should also include information on students with disabilities; and (3) when making comparisons among schools, districts, and states, comparisons should be based on similar populations. (Contains 28 references.) (CR) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ********************************************************************************

Upload: hatu

Post on 14-Feb-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 425 586 EC 306 926

AUTHOR Thurlow, Martha L.; Langenfeld, Karen L. H.; Nelson, J.Ruth; Shin, Hyeonsook; Coleman, JoAnne E.

TITLE State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying aboutStudents with Disabilities? Technical Report 20.

INSTITUTION National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.;Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.;National Association of State Directors of SpecialEducation, Alexandria, VA.

SPONS AGENCY Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.PUB DATE 1998-05-00NOTE 88p.; For an earlier, shorter version of this report, see ED

419 323.CONTRACT H159C5004AVAILABLE FROM National Center on Education Outcomes, University of

Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road,Minneapolis, MN 55455; Tel: 612-624-8561; Fax: 612-624-0879;Web site: http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCE0 ($15).

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC04 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Accountability; *Data Collection; *Disabilities;

Educational Assessment; Elementary Secondary Education;Input Output Analysis; *Outcomes of Education; SchoolEffectiveness; Special Education; *State Programs; StudentEvaluation; Student Participation

ABSTRACTThis report summarizes a study that analyzed the inclusion

of students with disabilities in the accountability systems of 48 stateeducation accountability reports and that of Washington, D.C. Extremevariability was found to exist in the reporting practices across states andthere was little information on students with disabilities. Eleven statesincluded test-based outcome data for students with disabilities in theirreports and only five states produced a separate special education report.Many states include input/context and/or process indicators for students withdisabilities, but few reported outcome data for these students. Finally,every state was unclear on at least one educational indicator in theiraccountability system and whether students with disabilities were included.The report contains the following recommendations about reporting on studentswith disabilities: (1) be clear about the role of students with disabilitiesin data and standards; (2) while special education reports can be useful inproviding detailed information about students with disabilities, generalaccountability reports should also include information on students withdisabilities; and (3) when making comparisons among schools, districts, andstates, comparisons should be based on similar populations. (Contains 28references.) (CR)

********************************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

********************************************************************************

Page 2: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

#LY

Technical Report 20

REST COPY J.1-1VA1LA

1&,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOd ot Educational Research and improvement

ED CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER fERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived frorn the person or organizationoriginahrig t.

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproductoon Quality,

Points of view or opinions stated to tare doCumeet do not necessardy represent officialOERI Position or pohcy

State Accountability Reports:What are States Saying aboutStudents with Disabilities?

NATIONALCENTER ONEDUCATIONALOUTCOMES

In collaboration with:Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

LE 9

Page 3: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Technical Report 20

State Accountability Reports:What are States Saying aboutStudents with Disabilities?

Martha L. Thurlow Karen L.H. LangenfeldJ. Ruth Nelson Hyeonsook ShinJoAnne E. Coleman

May 1998

3

Page 4: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

II ILIANATIONALMCENTER ON

EDUCATIONALOUTCOMES

The Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement(#H159C50004) with the Division of Innovation and Development, Officeof Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Opinionsexpressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department ofEducation or Offices within it.

NCEO Core Staff

Robert H. BruininksJudith L. ElliottLoren H. FaibischDorene L. ScottMartha L. Thurlow, Associate DirectorJames E. Ysseldyke, Director

Additional copies of this document may be ordered for $15.00 from:

National Center on Educational OutcomesUniversity of Minnesota 350 Elliott Hall75 East River Road Minneapolis, MN 55455Phone 612/624-8561 Fax 612/624-0879http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCE0

4

Page 5: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Executive Summary

Public reports on education reflect the ways in which accountability is handled by the state.The extent to which students with disabilities are included in these reports is an important indexof the extent to which responsibility is taken for the education of these students.

This analysis presents information on accountability reports sent to us from 48 states andWashington, DC. Our analysis of the 113 reports we received focused on the accountabilitysystems in general and, specifically, on how students with disabilities are represented in thereports. Results of this analysis include the findings of:

extreme variability in reporting practices across statespresence of little information on students with disabilitiesa. Only 11 states include test-based outcome data for students with disabilities

in their reports.b. Five states produce a separate special education report.c. Many states include input/context and/or process indicators for students with

disabilities.d. Every state is unclear on at least one educational indicator in the

accountability system as to whether students with disabilities were included.

The following recommendations are made as a result of our analysis:Specify the target audience for each report, and gear the information to thataudience.If possible, gain input from the targeted audiences on information needs.Provide a "pyramid of information" with a brief, easy-to-understand report forquick reference, and more detailed information available to those who need it.

Avoid a great deal of overlap or inconsistency among reports.Make the purpose of the accountability system clear, and provide the readerwith information on the appropriate and inappropriate use of information (suchas whether to make comparisons among districts).Choose educational indicators carefully and maintain some consistency amongdifferent reports.Be clear about the role of students with disabilities in data and standards. Ifmaking references to "all" students, then "all" students should include studentswith disabilities.While special education reports can be very useful in providing detailedinformation about students with disabilities, regular education reports shouldalso include information on students with disabilities.When making comparisons among schools, districts, and states, and even whenmaking comparisons over time, comparisons should be based on similarpopulations. It is important to know the characteristics of the students whosescores are being compared, such as the number of students with disabilities, thesocioeconomic status of students, and other characteristics.

5

Page 6: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Table of Contents

Background 1

Method 3

Limitations and Cautions 3

Results 4

How Are Data Reported? 4

Number of reports 4

Length of reports 5

Level of data reported 5

Focus of Documents 6

Students with disabilities 6

Purposes of Documents and Targeted Audiences 6

Purposes and consequences of accountability system 7

High stakes testing 8

Target audience 8

Types of Indicators Used 9

Special education students 10

National and Longitudinal Comparisons 11

Meeting State Standards 12

Special education students 13

What Do the Documents Look Like9 13

Spreadsheets 13

Data tables 15

B ar graphs 16

Narratives 18

Are These Documents Understandable9 20

Students with Disabilities in Accountability Reporting 21

Separate special education reports 26

Disaggregated special education student data 26

Summary 26

Issues and Recommendations 28

References 29

Appendix: State Accountability Document Tables 33

Page 7: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Background

During the past five to ten years of educational reform, policymakers, school administrators,

legislators, and the general public have pressed to know whether education is working for

students. In response to this, education has developed outcomes-based accountability systems,which are systematic methods to assure those inside and outside the educational system that

schools and students are moving toward desired goals (Brauen, O'Reilly, & Moore, 1994).

An accountability system is more than the assessment of outcomes; it requires that student

performance be reported routinely and that consequences follow (Brauen et al., 1994).

According to Brauen et al., consequences may be distributed to either individuals, such as a

student or a teacher, or to systems, such as a program or school. Consequences may include

sanctions, such as failure to graduate or loss of personnel, and/or rewards, such as public

recognition of success or increased funding (Bond, Braskamp, & Roeber, 1996; Brauen et al.,

1994; Geenen, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke 1995).

The most common way of documenting progress for accountability systems has been through

the development of state accountability reports that regularly present indicators of the status of

public education, including student assessment data, data on students and teachers, and school

finance data (CCSSO, 1995). Indicators are statistical measures of some aspect of theeducational system (College of Education & Human Development, 1996). In 1995, theCouncil of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) produced a document on state accountability

reports that was based on a survey of state assessment directors. A partnership between

CCSSO and the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) annually produces

the State Student Assessment Program Database, which includes data obtained from annual

surveys of state assessment directors. These reports are excellent summaries of state reporting

purposes, levels of statistics reported, frequency of reporting, whether these reports weremandated, and whether rewards and/or sanctions were attached to reporting in the state (Bond

et al., 1996; CCSSO, 1995). Bond et al. indicated that most of the 45 states with currentlyfunctioning statewide assessment programs use each of their assessment components for two

to four of the following six purposes: improving instruction and curriculum; programevaluation; school performance reporting; student diagnosis or placement; high school

graduation; and school accreditation.

Until recently, little information was available on where students with disabilities fit into state

accountability systems. Ysseldyke (1995) as quoted by Bond et al. (1996) noted that 6 to 14

percent of the total tested elementary population and 5 to 10 percent of the total tested high

school population were students with disabilities. Forty-one states allow students withdisabilities to be excluded from the state assessment program (Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke,1995). These students can be exempted from the assessment if the assessment is not

NCEO 1

7

Page 8: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

appropriate for them (content is not included in student's IEP), and for most states, a student isincluded or excluded based on LEP recommendations. It also has been reported that even whenstudents with disabilities participate in the statewide assessment program, their scores mightnot be included in the state, district, or school averages (Erickson, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke,1996).

Elliott et al. (1996) reported that 41 states had written guidelines about the participation ofstudents with disabilities in their statewide assessment programs. Thirty-nine of these statesreported that they offered special testing accommodations for students with disabilities. Of the133 different assessments employed by the states in 1994, participation rates could beestimated by state special education directors for only 49 (Erickson, Thurlow, & Thor, 1995).Thurlow, Scott, and Ysseldyke (1995b) further found that of the 24 states that described whatthey do with data on students with disabilities in their written guidelines, more than half (n=14)stated that data from students with disabilities were not included in their accountability reports;however, eight states did document the number of students excluded from the assessments.According to Elliott et al. (1996), it is not uncommon for those students with disabilities whodo participate in assessments to have their scores deleted, their results shared only withparents, or no record kept of their even taking the test.

States vary in their reporting practices. As Elliott et al. (1996) pointed out, some states makedecisions about reporting based on whether a student receives an accommodation or on whattype of accommodation the student receives. It is also not uncommon for students withdisabilities to be excluded from participation rates for the assessment. Elliott et al. contend thatif students with disabilities are not assessed in some manner and their results are not reported,then accountability for the quality of their educational experience may be compromised.

To better understand the status of students with disabilities, we examined actual accountabilityreports from states, rather than analyzing policies or personnel reports about practice. Welooked at the kind of accountability data reported, the presence of comparative data, and thebreakdown of results for groups of students, particularly students with disabilities. Thus, ourfocus was on information that was not included in the CCSSO survey and State StudentAssessment Programs Database. Our primary objective was to document the extent to whichstudents with disabilities and their assessment results are included in state accountabilityreports, and to address and recommend ways to move toward systematic and inclusivereporting practices.

2 NCEO

Page 9: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Method

The accountability documents for this analysis were obtained by calling the state assessmentdirectors or their designees in each of the 50 states and Washington DC, beginning in fall1995. The calls were made based on the information from the CCSSO (1995) report, whichlisted accountability documents for each state as well as interview information about the state'saccountability system. Unless otherwise indicated, our analysis is based solely on theinformation contained in the written documents, and not based on other sources of information.Second and third calls were made to a few states that had not responded by early fall, and alldocuments were obtained by May of 1997. We occasionally received updated information forthe original documents, and these were included in our data coding, but we did not formallysolicit updated information for this analysis. Accountability reports were collected from allstates except California (testing program currently under revision), Minnesota (currentlydeveloping an accountability system), and Wyoming (no formal accountability documentsavailable). We did not include reports of special studies or evaluations of specific programs inour analysis.

Each document was thoroughly examined, using a checklist of commonly used indicators.ofeducational performance, and descriptive notes regarding each accountability document. Theindicators were selected by first perusing several existing models of education (e.g., Oakes,1986; Shavelson, McDonnell, & Oakes, 1989, Shavelson, McDonnell, Oakes, & Carey,1987). In addition, several of the documents we had received were scanned to determinewhether additional types of indicators were needed. The checklist and descriptive notes werecompleted simultaneously. Essentially, raters started at the beginning of each report, markingthe indicators present and writing notes. Any information that was found on students withdisabilities was noted.

Limitations and Cautions

This analysis was limited by some of the following factors:Accountability systems are changing, dynamic processes. Adetailed analysis of this type will necessarily have some information that is outof date by the time of publication. In addition, the documents we obtainedcontain data ranging from the 93-94 school year to the 95-96 school year.Different accountability systems have different definitions ofaccountability. Our requests were answered by state assessment directors indifferent ways. For example, some states included reports based solely onfinancial information. Other states may have had the same types of reports, butdid not consider them to be accountability documents so they did not send them.

NCEO 3

9

Page 10: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

This analysis is based on documents, not interviews or othersources of information. Exceptions include accountability informationobtained through the World Wide Web.This analysis includes over 100 documents, obtained at varioustimes from the fall of 1995 through May 1997. Many people havecontributed to the daunting task of reading and coding each report. Every effortwas made to maintain internal consistency and reliability throughout thisprocess. This was accomplished by repeated rechecking of coding, and finalconsistency checks by two individuals.

Results

The following sections contain summary information about the accountability documents givento us by each of the states and Washington DC. The information is taken from the tables in theappendix (Tables AD), the state summaries, which are in a separate document available fromNCEO (Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Shin, & Coleman, 1997), and the documentsthemselves. Much more information is available in these tables and in the state summaries thancould be summarized here.

How are Data Reported?There is a great amount of variability in accountability reporting across states. There is alsovariability within state documents when more than one report is produced by a single state.

Number of reports. As shown in Table 1, a number of states compile their accountabilitydata into a single report (n=16). Thirty-two states provided multiple accountability documents.North Carolina and Oklahoma each provided six accountability documents, and New Yorkprovided the most (n=7). For more information, see Table A in the appendix.

Table 1. Number of Accountability Reports Sent to NCEO by State Assessment Directors# of

Reports States7 New York

6 North Carolina, Oklahoma

5 South Carolina, Georgia

4 North Dakota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Vermont

3 Louisiana, New Jersey

2 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Ken-tucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington

1 Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Washington DC, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi,Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin

4

1 0

NCEO

Page 11: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Length of reports. Accountability documents ranged in length from two toapproximately 600 pages. Unique documents included small pocket size reports or posterswith general summary information. Some documents provided highly detailed specialeducation data.

Level of data reported. States varied considerably in the level of data reported, whichrefers to the level of detail given in the accountability documents. Reports may provide state,district, and/or schoolwide averages for test data during a particular school year. Figure 1shows the level of data reported by each of the states, according to all of the documents sent tous by each state. (Table B in the appendix gives more detailed information, providing the levelof data reported for each document.) States may have any combination of state, district, andschool-level reporting, and these may vary from document to document, and from oneindicator to another. The combination of the first two columns in Figure 1 (State & Districtonly, and State, District & School), makes it clear that most states do provide accountabilitydata at the state and district levels (N=41). Twenty-eight states actually report data at all threelevels. Four states provide only state level data (Colorado, Iowa, Montana, and Oregon).

Figure 1. Level of Data Reported

State Only

District & SchoolOnly

State & School Only

State & DistrictOnly

State, District, &

School

0 10 15 20 25 30

Number of States Reporting

NCEO 5

1 1

Page 12: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Focus of DocumentsWe looked at the focus of reports as being directed toward inputs/contexts, processes, oroutcome indicators, where indicators are statistical measures of some aspect of the educationalsystem (College of Education & Human Development, 1996). Our analysis revealed a greatdeal of variability in the focus of reports. In the analysis, "inputs/contexts" refers toaccountability indicators that describe the student' s learning environment as well asdemographic characteristics, financial and human resources of the particular district'spopulation (e.g., student-teacher ratio, cost) (Bruininks, Deno, McGrew, Shriner, Thurlow, &Ysseldyke, 1991). Process indicators describe student participation and school districtevaluation (e.g., enrollment, attendance, accreditation status). Outcome indicators are nontestand.test data indicators that focus on the end result of a student's learning process or are indicesof the products of a reciprocal interaction between the individual and school or life experiences.

Figure 2 shows the number of states that report on inputs, processes, and outcomes for regulareducation students, and for students with disabilities. Of the states that sent us information, allbut four (Delaware, Kentucky, Montana, and Washington) included information on theinputs/contexts of education for regular education students. All states but four (Delaware,Idaho, Montana, Washington) included information on the educational process. All statesincluded information on the outcomes of education. Table A in the appendix shows the focusof reporting, aggregating all of the reports that were sent to us by the states. Tables C and D inthe appendix show the various inputs/contexts, processes, and outcomes indicators reported ineach accountability document. More detailed information is contained in the separate documentcontaining state summaries (Thurlow et al., 1997).

Students with disabilities. From Figure 2, it is obvious that while all states includedoutcome information in at least one report, only 11 states reported outcome information forstudents with disabilities. The most commonly reported information for students withdisabilities was process information (see the section on Educational Indicators for additionalinformation on the types of indicators reported for students with disabilities).

Purposes of Documents and Targeted AudiencesThis analysis includes only those purposes, consequences, and targeted audiences that werespecifically mentioned in the introductions to documents or were clearly stated within the text.It should be noted that the purpose of producing an accountability report can be different fromthe purpose of an accountability system. Yet, this may not be clear in the statements found inthe reports.

6 NCEO

12

Page 13: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 2. Focus of Reporting

a-0 Outcomes '

Et

Processes l'

j"Inputs/

O. Contexts

Tt.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Number of States Reporting

13 Students withDisabilitiesStudents withoutDisabilities

Purposes and consequences of accountability system. Figure 3 shows thenumber of states that mentioned specific purposes or consequences in the introductions to their

reports. Since most states had multiple reports, and often stated more than one purpose, the

numbers in the figure overlap. The columns show the specific purposes that we targeted in our

analysis. Eight states use the information in their accountability reports for accreditation

purposes, while five states report financial aid as a purpose of the accountability system.Technical assistance was cited as a purpose/consequence of the information in four states'

accountability reports. Finally, only one state (Virginia) used the information reported in its

accountability document for diploma purposes.

Thirty-two states fall into the "other" category, with the majority of these stating the purpose of

their reports was "to provide information," without mention of why the data were collected, or

how the data should be used. Other purposes were to: comply with state requirements for

testing or legal operation of schools; measure the progress of education; make policy decisions;

generate local, district, and national comparisons; use as a tool for progress toward meeting

Goals 2000; aid in curriculum development; describe the role and function of the statedepartment of education; increase partnerships between schools and neighborhoods; and

provide a picture of school management. Twenty-eight states did not mention a purpose in at

least one of their accountability documents.

NCE0 7

13

Page 14: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 3. Purposes and Consequences of Accountability Systems

Not Specified

Other

TechnicalAssistance

Financial Aid

Accreditation

Diploma

0 10 15 20 25

Number of States

30 35

High stakes testing. Many reports do not mention the stakes attached to particular tests,or do not make the stakes of testing clear. For example, Texas only mentions that the TAAS(Texas Assessment of Academic Skills) is a graduation exit exam in the glossary section of oneof its documents. Several documents mention the TAAS without mentioning the stakes. Ohiosent us data without mention of how any of the tests reported are used. Of the 17 states thathad a graduation exam at the time of this report, only one state (Virginia) stated this purposeclearly at the very beginning of the document when commenting on the purposes andconsequences of its accountability system.

Target audience. Figure 4 shows the number of states that mentioned a specificaudience by name in the introduction to their reports, or in the title of their reports. Themajority of states do not specify who their target audience is in at least one of their reports(N=31). While not shown on the figure, we also counted 14 states that did not specify a targetaudience in any of their reports. From looking at Figure 4, it is evident that:

The most common target audience of reports is the general public (27 states).

18 states direct their reports to the government (local school boards, statelegislature, or federal government).

Teachers and administrators also appear to be an important audience: 16 statesdirect their reports to teachers and administrators and other school personnel.

8 NCEO

4

Page 15: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Only nine states specifically mention parents as the target audience (thoughparents are probably included under those reports directed to the general public)

Reports directed at "other" audiences (n=6) included: special educationcommunity (from a special education document), students, researchers, andassessment personnel.

Types of Indicators UsedAccountability reports use a wide range of indicators. Figures 5 and 6 show the educationalindicators that we used in our analysis, and the number of states with at least one documentreporting each indicator. A glossary of all of the indicators used in the analysis is included inthe appendix. Tables C and D in the appendix show the indicators used in each report. Moredetailed information is included in the state summaries document (Thurlow et al., 1997).

We found a variety of common and unique educational indicators. Examples of commonindicators included such things as detailed financial information (such as levy data andexpenditures), staffing information (such as teacher education), and postsecondary outcomes(such as percentage of students attending college or employment rates). Some uniqueindicators included absenteeism rates, student mobility rates, and minutes spent in math andreading instruction.

Figure 4. Target Audiences

Not Specified

Other

Government

Teachers/Administrators

Parents

General Public

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Number of States Reporting (Ws overlap)

NCEO 9

15

Page 16: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Special education students. In Figures 5 and 6, it is evident that the most commoneducational indicator used for special education students is enrollment (N=25). Enrollmentdata for special education students often includes detailed information on the number ofstudents in each disability category, average daily membership, and referral data. Other specialeducation indicators included special programs, and detailed expenditures. A few statesincluded such indicators as time spent in regular education versus separate settings, nuniber ofstudents exiting special education and reasons for exit, staff and case load ratios, andracial/ethnic gender special education classification rates. Again, little outcome data forstudents with disabilities were reported, particularly with test data.

Figure 5. Test-Based Educational Indicators

Advanced III- I

Placement

End-of-Icourse exam

CollegeEntrance

SecondaryExit Exam

StateStandards

AchievementTesting

t

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Number of States Reporting

o Students withDisabilities

III Students withoutDisabilities

10

16

Ncgo

Page 17: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 6. Other Educational Indicators

Graduation Rates

Drop-out Rates

Attendance

Enrollment

Cost

Student-Teacher r77-77-7=Ratio

. .

O 5 10 1.5 20 25 30 35 40

Number of States Reporting

o Students withDisabilitiesStudents withoutDisabilities

National and Longitudinal ComparisonsWe were interested in knowing whether states used their students' data in national._comparisons. We found that 11 states provided national comparison data (Colorado, Illinois,

Iowa, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah,Vermont, West Virginia). Most of these states reported data on the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), a low-stakes national achievement test as well as state or district

assessment data. Two states used the national percentile rank on the Stanford Achievement

Test to make national comparisons (Utah and West Virginia). Vermont specifically used

student results on selected portions of a multiple choice section of their MathematicsUniform

Test and compared them to the 1990 NAEP. Illinois did not specify which nationally normed

achievement test was used to make national comparisons, but it did generate data on national

comparisons. North Dakota not only made national comparisons to the NAEP, but also to the

International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP). The IAEP is a similar normed

achievement test, but data are collected on an international level.

In order to look at trends and to check academic progress from year to year, longitudinal data

can also be included within accountability reports. Thirty-four states report on comparisons to

prior year(s) in at least one accountability document (see Table D in the appendix). Figure 7shows an example of a state (Virginia) that reports test and nontest data from 1990-1994:

NCEO 11

1 7

Page 18: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 7: Example of Report with Data from Multiple Years

Objective V: Educating Elementary School Students

Outcome IndicatorsState Percents

1990-91 1991-92. r:1992-93 1993-94

1 . 4th Grade Standardized Test Scores - Percent of 4th gradestudents who took the Virginia State Assessment Program standardizedtests under standard conditions whose composite scores were above thenational 50th percentile

6 2 6 3

,

6 3 6 3

2. Attendance- Percent of students in grades K-5 whowere absent 10days or less from school 7 2 TT' 76' 78,

3 . Literacy Passport 6th Grade Pass Rate - Percent of Sth gradestudents wno passed all three Literacy Passport tests 7 2 6 3 6 9 7 0

4 . Over Age 4th. Grade. Students - Percent of 4th grade studentswho were 11 or more years of age 5 4 4 a

5 . Over Age.Minority 4th Grade Students - Percent ot minority 4thgrade students who were 11 or more years of age 8 7 6 5

6. Physical Fitness Tests - Percent of 4th. and 5th grade students who.passed all four spring physical. fitness tests 29 30 3 3. 35

Percent of 4th and Sth grade students enrolled in Physical Educatfortwhotook all four spring physical fitness tests 9,1 92 93. 93

Meeting State StandardsSome states report their assessment scores in terms of whether they met prescribed statestandards (e.g., the percentage of students passing the standard of 50% on a nationally normedtest). Our analysis of reports showed that 15 states reported whether their students met theprescribed state standards (see Table C in the appendix): Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware,Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, NorthCarolina, Ohio, Rhode Island and South Carolina. For the purposes of this analysis, weincluded those reports that mentioned standards, benchmarks or goals (including those inGoals 2000) when reporting data on students.

Many states, however, are unclear as to the relationships among curriculum, standards, andassessments. Kansas makes the link very clear in its single accountability document, givingdata on students' performance as well as descriptions of innovative programs that demonstratethe link between curriculum and assessment. While it is clear in some of the reports thatstandards exist, it is often unclear whether students are meeting the standards, or what thespecific standards are. In the following example, Louisiana clearly describes a standard andexpected outcomes in its report card:

12

BEST COPY AVAILABLENCEO

Page 19: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

The tables reflect both the number of students taking the test and the percent ofstudents who meet or exceed standards for the respective grade levels. Thus,the percent of students passing a specific test is the percent scoring at or abovethe performance standard that the state has set in that subject area (DistrictComposite Report, Catahoula Parish, March 1995, p. 41)

Special education students. Many states do not mention whether students withdisabilities are included in state standards; however, six states reported whether students withdisabilities met state standards (Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, New York, North Carolinaand Rhode Island). While the term "all students" is mentioned often, a definition of "all"usually is not given.

What Do the Documents Look Like?In thoroughly examining the reports of the 48 states (including Washington, DC) that sentdocuments to us, we found 48 different approachesall with different indicators highlightedor excluded. Many states use tables or spreadsheets, and some have switched from paperformats to the Internet to communicate their results. A uniform format does not exist. If statesprovide test data, then the methods of reporting those data also vary considerably. We did findthat two sections usually are included in reports: some type of outcome data and financial datafor regular education students.

Examples of different formats are given below. Some formats are more understandable thanothers, and some formats may be more useful for one type of audience (such as a researcher ora school administrator) but not for others (such as parents or the general public).

Spreadsheets. For the purposes of this analysis, we termed data presented in columns as"spreadsheet format." This type of format can present a great deal of information in a limitedspace, but can be very difficult to read, particularly for the general public, which is mostfrequently identified as the target audience of reporting. Often spreadsheet data are seen inlarge reports including state, district, and school level data for an entire state. An example ofthis includes the Illinois report card which is available on diskette rather than in printed form,and includes 15,000,000 bytes of information on over 700 indicators. Figures 8 and 9 showexamples of typical spreadsheet data presentation. In Figure 8, detailed special educationenrollment data are given according to district. In Figure 9, reading and mathematics scores aregiven by district and school.

NCEO 13

1 9

Page 20: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 8. Example of New Jersey Report Using a Spreadsheet Format

CO UISIRICTAll ,"9§..kcP.!IctrfAll ,AilANTIC CITYMI. BRIGANTINE CITYill 06 ptiAkEdui-ii0i.Alt copppiairiAni. EGdiimpiDtioryAlt Edd HARBOR E-WPAll E STELI.lik.654AIL FOLSOM-BOROAU. GAT COWAY Tiro.AIL GREATER EGG HARBORAil HAMIT TON TWPATL tiAti.tacititom TOWNAli IINW000CIIYAft MAINLAND REG /IAll MARGATE CITYATI. JILILLICA TWPAlt No13741E1:5 CITVill PI EASkiIVILAIL PORT REpUoitic.

POINTMI iittiitaiRAll WEYMOUTH TNPBEATIER ALPINE BOROSIR BERGEN VOCA I AR/AI0E0 btridttivIpiA5 dokoSEA BOGOTA BORODEA CARLSTADT BOROBEN CARISIADTE RUDILIOUBER CLIFFSIDE PARK BORO

NEW ANSE), 51511 DEPM IMLNI UT EDUCATIONOFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

PERCENT Of ENROLLMENT OF PUBLIC PUPILS P4111 EDUCA TIONAL DISABILITIESBY DISTRICT BY PLACEMENT

DECEARIER I 995

1995

t.N1a6

61,5 §

0004

601

321idi

3;00.5i65iSii1017895

1036

11;SKI

3152

0.71247

P.@3336did237

1415

get Stig.VPI PR,-=9_BEA CERESSKE151 TI. 87,100BERBER DUMONT BORO 2435BER EAST RUTHERFORD iiiBER EDGEWATER Raki,604 tiiiiiiiiititTAi017 illBEFI EMERSON ROOD 00Odii rpridi tvikkib-efre 281141

RER iptida.dm0006.i0ts :id

PUBSP

IS

soi

66i

3 0So

ii2856ididitid

13 3

09

192RI547

IIid

SUPPKEG

'990

oo0 ooo60

0500

:0

21

0 0i

99

33644 9

i2:

06

g66

66

SUPPE.

"%%

obo06be06Od6606

0

Ob6600o

66g:

00

06oo

gig

2165

I. "ErS2RilEAP CI"MICIERRN E THANc4,1:2, 71% 21

14 6si.

oo66 ii i 1i i It it66 Iti i 6606 ti 55

66i i i g i 6

i i 6 igooi i 5 i

n 37 2105 6 0

00 0 i A6 i 04 idis 05 id09

gg0

66oo2 60

0606

ooo1 1

Si66

ggi

62

95666 i

26iI;1.4 2

I

1 1:

2 10 ioo

i

ggIS0

;';

ioASis2 4

i 70 61 71219

TOog

0779

it

LESS THCALNASIIZI/RE THAN

"0160%09

60 id25

gg5S

2

6666 :2oi it

itg06 ii 06600

6699

33. 00

ii66bedodi62

Figure 9. Example of Report Using a Spreadsheet Format

QUARTILE DISTRIMITIneaS IL0R RFAILING AND MATIIrmnyIrs

66

33i0 51 6

i;

12i tdo

PRIVATECLASS II DAY RES

IT 0 2 0 1

2 10056

ii 6

sbiISIi

500IS

05

0026182:02

ooIS

70 760

17I

07

i68id0 4

64

0 2di0od

tgdi6

tg60OSoo0 o0 2

130 0

2 11

0066

2:0 4650 465dideid6 7

/II

?Al tg661 00061 02oo' oo

os6199, 99op. 1

oil 0 000

60 01oo

60 o00 0 2

2 20

Cif oo

0I01010

1.611C1111LOW

SC/4001, 161e01,070E601140

11 14M17.1

(70007 9MATH

1 11 TIM TM L

(76701 5RIntnntel

II IIM TM I IIMAST1166 166

41

I II

17101,7 IIACING 1.15114

I1M 11.4 1 II 111.111.1

ET TEIWOOD AREA ftEEIWOOD El 5 37 IR 34 II 75 AO 27 5 . . . .

DEFIWOCO MS 5 37 13 25 11 34 34 71 10 .

ELMWOOD SIG a 75 3n 17 7. 77 75 77 75MAIER It 5 31 23 21 15 71 38 26 75RICHMOHD ft 5 77 AI 511 II 75 36 17 77

0-OVI91.200 mown GOVORMOO mon IN MS 5 33 73 75 18 34 2 7 77 I 7 .

GOVERNoR mum SITS 3 nt In 10 77 77 77 7. 1.INTERMEDIATE SCII 7 10 26 27 15 j/ 77 21 11

177,musG AREA HAMBURG *PEA GIG 10 . . . In 31 73 115 20 33 76 15 77 29 7,3 70 31 ;7 ;..7. mHAMBURG Ft IA 78 75 33 14 76 30 25 IRPERRY EL 14 30 36 23 11 II 38 42 9SIRAUSSIOWN El I 1 5 24 52 49 26 29 33 lomud same Ft 7 23 31 31 15 27 42 15 IS

41,021000/ ARIA ALBANY Et 15 44 19 26 II 33 41 72 4GREENWICH LENHARTAVII. 10 30 36 22 9 47 79 25 4KUItTOWN AREA PIS 11 75 33 75 14 17 76 76 13KIJIZIOWP4 ARFA SIA 5 15 In 71 11 4 7 1, 77 IIKUTZTOWN ft 7 44 23 19 la 47 74 22 7

M611ATAWP4Y EL 11 18 n 14 IR 27 12 21 18

2.11.11701807177 EFIBITZG 113 17 71 11 77 71 11 76 70 14 74 71 ',I 71 74 71 141.11731111411E1747. MS 11 14 21 10 15 77 10 77 15

1-11EY VATIEy OM VAUD.' Ft I 37 3n 76 7 23 32 31 15 .

01E0 RATIFY MS 0 75 77 74 77 74 73 77 7501(5 VAITE6 7110 I 74 IP 1 , 77 77 79 711 74

cc Armlet AMANDA I STOUT Ft 80 7 A 27 63 8 7 22 63GlEMSIDE 11. 72 0 18 23 53 6 11 77 77(AUTOS PARK ft 84 7 8 19 70 -MIUM0511 Et AO II II 47 73 R 11 42 IRNORTHEAST MS 37 , 17 74 79 10 6 I. 77 /17NORTHWEST El 64 5 18 71 57 A 4 21 69NORTHWEST MS 65READING DK 28

In 77 74 49 4 17 77 56

RIVERSIDE fl 44 1 7 1 7 39 26 70 17 31 1751011171111 A 41440( ft 40 70 27 30 15 In 70 33 17

nel.hov01130 let:BARG 80 OPIcenI Itudonl polICIVanon mfe

1091-95 SCHOOL11V-SCII001. RESULTS real,

otAt22 0

:3:2i 522 1IS21 5id 2113 9

1.2 3

117 8

15

14 313 119 715 513

16 615 9

tt 024 413115:77 11351516512215412611 I707126156IS15 116 415115

14

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 20NCEO

Page 21: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Data tables. Data tables are easier to read than pages of spreadsheet data. They often canconvey a great deal of information in limited space. Figure 10 shows a data table containinguseful information about test scores for regular and special education students as well asstudent scores disaggregated by race, gender, free or reduced price lunch, repeater and non-

repeaters, and within the age range and over the age range.

Figure 10. Example of Report with Multiple Disaggregations

Percentages of Students Meeting the Standards and

Total Manbai of Students Tested on the BSAP Mathematics Test3 - 1995

Groups 1 Grade 3 Grade 8 Grade 10*

All Students I 82.1% 47,123 68.0% 47,761 76.6% 39,049

Male 1 82.4% 23,770 68.1% 23,448 78.1% 18,997

Female 81.3% 23;292 68.1% 24,227 75.3% 19,959

White 39.9% 26,952 30.1% 27,461 87.1% 23,216

African-American 71.1% 19,407 51.0% 19,346 60.4% 15,126

White Male 90.6% 13,356 1 30.0% 13,747 88.4% 11,642

WhiteFemaie 89.2% 13,090 30.2% 13,708 35.3% 11,568

African-American Male 70.3% 9,536 50.5% 9,371 6020!, 7,044

Afrmaa.A,merama Female 71.3% 9,357 51.5% 10,159 60.0% 8,077

Free Lunch 72.4% 20,344 50.2% 16,749 59.4% 9,575

Reduced Price Lana 81.9% 3,387 65.0% 2,390 70.3°,4 1,648

No Freefitedneed Price 911% 22,593 79.7% 27,346 83.2% 27,429Lunch

Non-Repeater 32.4% 44,676 68.6% 45,037 1 77.1% 37,327

Repeater 76.6% 595 51.4% 766 56.8% 398

Not Disabled 34.2% 41,317 70.9% 44,423 78.5% 37,267

Disabled 615% 5305 29.3% 3338 36.5% 1,780

Within Age Range or 35.0% 38,643 73.4% 32-561 35.0% 27436Under

1 Over-age Range 69.1% 3,386 15.9% 15,096 56.1% 11-320

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NCEO 15

2 1

Page 22: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 11 shows data tables that are included in a report displaying all information for a singledistrict on one page. These types of reports, which often include bar graphs and other types ofillustrative data are usually easier to read than the large spreadsheet reports, but still can be verybulky.

Figure 11. Example of Report with All Data for District on One Page

Wet

Co.21,7, 1 !I'Gionallts- es Per1995 P1( 17 EnoollnuonlADIM of Toilloned

DIgIrklIntorm.tion1E7E9_ riA"PEL,

I S' oil111-16 169.9 103906

%....._c1t1N00ds Students33 001 Voc Ed En.obitont

WiWooL-6-511-ilur;cio51.1.0 .% MAI 690 011 50010004 Tor_olmal

compati15:17. ottnPutdrAionts Oda NY

P1111,1011 So I 1 I okio 199 .1.1 .1

1..1!Ni..11, 3900,111. 1/:,1.01aDistali gum 1,2ti941100

i f 'Ell 114 a.:.:7Fsif "s_"-Ir.r . P21,i01

...liv_ft..!,!!!1..2.1...1,2iiiiii .g539 Mlance.11.1pees 11.014i ii Pit 9...m.9 a ss mi., 1/ 010 1

117% :od 1049 510/1 if 16 of 500

ii 04

10.c. 0000,144

. ._ 11!!11.11991.110.061

_Eagles?

61.4117S3

S010/*col

dal

/4. Vattamlone

11 'venueI 0149 Outlay 9_41.01 d

_ .. ..... 111.1!.? g L1.111 00.1'151.1:05

-V i§9?,290

. 9?:606

5101.733_E.

igii1;3:: $165114110

Ch_Lt1.40

13ond Redo/v.0.0.0 Fund

(.11104...071.: ;;1iLat)

117;17

Lt.... P.c../Nolen Elano_nLl K 340

.. _.E40.. 9 l to 0%

116 414

50`.7°,791911-21

154.041$ii

19

"ft:93:1704.743

U.1100

400.. Fund 1.- nolMsdoo,

5965,99919 g!tassl sftwa

hiao - cgt LI :

J.; 'if 11.1'liltto 00000 tc110.1: 0.40(doit''e."NlIctil31440491144 3,4s ie,_ ......

(11001

10411,161/0311041 1I.171-Ni11" it" -7:. II: IliSeconds.), 5/00 03/

Cann...ply 503vicesNan p/No.±_norned

12901 112Y.t.1 .

Coad.ola.0426Pqsctusoi01Z Empondllunis

501.565.99

02esrs

19ii.165 i45

!tt 1.2>

647.100

.'1!,?-!! IEVLI

Kw

to.0

Lon. KKK. totio44 /40

!f"!ID 111 10 HA

It IA.111

Act ....mt.we.1 13.0644 0. 4.94.

1.44c1 003144944

0.4.404.Savo/ 131001

ill I!!!!971.9011

1110431

Bar graphs. Bar graphs of data often are found in reports with a narrative focus, ratherthan straight data presentation, and can be very useful in illustrating points when the report isattempting to highlight particular issues. Figure 12 shows a narrative report that uses bargraphs and data tables to illustrate a report on outcomes for students with disabilities. Figure13 shows a different type of bar graph used to illustrate testing results.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

16 NCEO

Page 23: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 12. Example of Report Using Narrative and Graphs

Special Education Program Summary1994-95

Connecticut Mastery TestPercentage of Students At or Above State Goal

Mathematics Readingso z

Scowlsiducallso

Grad. 4 Gred 6 Grade 6 Grids 4 Grads 6 Gado I

so

20

10

Writing

Grad* 4 Geed* 4 Gouda I

Previous research has validated the use of the Connecti-cut Mastery Test as an appropriate instrument to mea-sure the academic achievement of students with milddisabilities.

In 1994-95. 59.3 percent (10.175 students) of the spe-cial education students in Grades 4, 6 and 3 took theCMI cn grade level. This includes 911 students whowere partially tested. An additional 739 students took ailower grade-level form of the test. This participation rate0.e.. 59.3%) is a slight increase from 1993-94. when 37.4percent of the special education students took the CMT.

Those special education students taking :he on-levelCMT. scored less than one-half the statewide overallacheivement level of state averages for ail students.There was a generally positive upward trend for all stu-dents statewide between 1993 and 1994. Scecial edu-cation students scoring at or above the state goals in-creased in six of the nine categories. The two largestincreases were in Writing at Graces 4 and 3.

Students Exiting Special Education

Status Number PercentReturned to Regular Education 2.550 34.7%Graduated with Dicloma 1.955 26.6%Graduated. Certificate

of Completion 47 0.6%Reached Maximum Age 39 0.5%Moved. known to zte

continuing in another cistrict 1.573 22.3%Moved, not known to be

continuing in another oistrict 449 3.1%rccpeci Cut 306 3.3%

Deceased7CTAL 7.240 00.0%

This parm:Pation ,ate s zasea on uocatea stat:s;:cs ancrepresents .3 : ower -ate .nan previously reportec.

3

1993Grade 4Grade 6

I Grade 3

1994;Grade 4;Grade 6I Grade 3

Connecticut Mastery TestPercentage of StudentsAt or Above State Goal

Mathematics Reading WritingSp. Ed. All Sp. Ed. All Sp. Ed. All

29.4 53.3 20.7 44.6 15.9 32.015.5 44.3 25.9 37.5 17.3 38.314.3 46.2 25.1 38.9 11.3 32.5

31.9 56.3 19.9 45.0 19.6 39.716.3 45.3 26.6 38.7 19.6 40.414.2 45.7 24.0 39.2 19.2 40.81

Appendix A describes the results oi a longitudinal studythat examined the academic progress of mildly disabledstudents who a) received special education services, andb) participated in the CMT program.

In 1994-95, 7.340 students exited special education.This represented 10.6 percent or the total special edu-cation population.

Over cne-third (34.7 percent) or those exiting returnedto regular education. An additional 27.2 percent gradu-ated with either a diploma (26.6 percent) cr a certificateof completion (0.6 percent).

Over one quarter (28.9 percent) ci those exiting specialeducation moved to another distnct or state: and 3.3percent 1606 students) cf those exiting, formally droppedout of scnool.

NCEO

3EST COPY AVAILABLE 2 317

Page 24: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 13. Example of Report Using Bar Graphs

.1 I. I. S I 0 E N s

SI I N It I Ts ENTSsrECIA

F. I) ti C T 1 0 N

I. E I' S T II I) ENTS

RF.AOING PERFORMANCE

1=3 1. o w 1=1 NI icidIc Ell II oh

1 0 . S 3 0 .6 144ZikAlt. 6

41.7 531

8 2 .3

Total Test Takers Low Middle High

ALL STUDENTS 245 100 40.8% 75 30.6% 70 23.6%MINORITY STUDENTS 12 5 41.7% 6 50.0% 1 3.3%

SPECIAL EDUCATION 17 14 32.3% 3 17.7% 0 0%

LEP STUDENTS 1 + i-I

, -I I I

Narratives. Some reports mainly use narratives to discuss educational indicators. Figure14 shows a section from a regular education report that discusses the importance of studentswith disabilities meeting state standards, but the reporting actually contains only enrollmentdata.

18 NCEO

2 4

Page 25: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 14. Example of Report U:

SPECIAL EDU,,Oregon's Educational Act for the 21st.Ce

asserts that all students can learn. SPeci

education provides additional services and

accommodations for students with disabilities

can reach the same standards as student's iivitht

disabilities. .

Oregon is a leader in the nation in educatir\

students with disabilities alongside their non-di

peers. In 1995-96, 97 percent of all students wit..---even with additional services and accommodations..In

disabilities in Oregon were members of the student the 1996-97 school year, the State Board of Education

body in their public schools. Nationally, 71 percent of will develop an alternative certificate for chose

students with disabilities attend a regular classroom students to acknowledge their achievements.

more than half the day:

HIGHER STANDARDS

WITHIN REACH

Most students '.vith disabilities can achieve the

same high educational standards as their non-disabled

peers. Eighty percent of the approximately 57,000

students receiving special education in Oregon in

1995-96 had mild speech, language or learning

disabilities. As schools raise their educational

standards to meet Oregon's Educational Act for the

21st Century, the Oregon Department of Education

expects 75 percent to 80 percent of all special

education students to reach the new, higher standards.

The challenge for Oregon's schools will be to find

methods of instruction and assessment allowing special

education students to demonstrate their knowledge

and skills in appropriate ways. For example, if non-

IThe majoriry of special educarion students will

achieve Oregon's new,, higher academic standards

with reasonable accommodations for their

disabilities.

EARLY ACTION PAYS OFF

It is important that children with disabilities

receive services as eariy as possible to help minimize

the impact of their disabilities. If disabilities are

detected in infants and toddlers. early intervention

programs can improve their ability to perform wed

later in school. Services for these young children are

provided in natural environments such as at home for

very young or medically vulnerable children or In

regular or specialized preschools for older children.

SPECIAL EDUCATION ENROLLMENT

1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95

SPECIAL EnucxnoN 51,908 54,069 54,277 53.961

476,947 487.075 493.013 491,938AVERAGE DAILY MEMBERSHIP

10.88% 11.10% 11.01% 10.97%PFRCENT

'Figures for 1995-%6 are estimated.

1995-96* .ApproximateN 1

percent of Oregon's

public school students

receive special

education.

57.093

501.323

11.39%

1 7

NCEO 19

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Page 26: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Are These Documents Understandable?Given that state accountability reports target a variety of audiences with a variety of educationalneeds, it is important to ask about the extent to which the documents are understandable. Withso much information to share, the most convenient way to communicate results is usuallythrough tables, spreadsheets, and graphs. District and school level information can be verycumbersome in terms of length of reporting, even when the data are presented in clear, easy-to-understand language.

Some states provide each district or school with an individual report, containing state-levelinformation, as well as district and school level information for that particular district. Somestates attempt to group districts with similar characteristics (such as size and socioeconomicstatus) so that fair comparisons can be made, and other states simply present data and allowreaders to draw their own conclusions. Further, a few states give specific instructions on howto interpret data. Some states encourage readers to make district by district or schoolcomparisons, while a few states caution readers not to make such comparisons.

Sometimes the various indicators are not defined at all or not defined well. Some reports useglossaries that define the various indicators and terms used or explain the methods ofcalculating the various indicators, and others simply present data with little or no explanation.The following is an example in which the educational indicatorsare adequately defined:

Advanced CoursesThis indicator is based on completion of (and havingreceived credit for) at least one advanced course in grades 9-12. The course list(shown in appendix C) includes all advanced courses as well as all AP(Advanced Placement) courses except for two, computer science A and AB.Course completion information is reported to PEIMS (the Public EducationInformation Management System) at the end of the schoolyear. The values arecalculated as follows:

Number of students who completed at least one advanced academic course in1993-1994 [divided by] number of students who completed at least one coursein 1993-94

(Glossary for the Academic Excellence Indicator System, Texas 1994-95Report, p.2)

It is evident that "understandability" clearly varies from one state to the next, and even fromone state document to the next.

20 NCEOt

40

Page 27: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Students with Disabilities in Accountability ReportingFor every state that sent us a report, there was at least one educational indicator in at least onereport for which it was not clear whether students with disabilities were included. As indicated

in Table A in the appendix, of the 44 states that included input data, 13 included students withdisabilities, either aggregated with the regular education data, or disaggregated as separate data.Similarly, for the 44 states with process data, 30 included (aggregated or disaggregated) dataon students with disabilities.

Outcome data, on the other hand, were aggregated or disaggregated for students withdisabilities in only 11 of the 47 states plus Washington DC. In fact, close to half of the statesprovided information about the inputs/contexts and/or educational processes for students withdisabilities, but did not mention anything about outcome data for students with disabilities.Table 2 provides a summary of the kind of outcome data included by the 11 states that reporton these data. As indicated, few of these states include students with disabilities in all of their

outcome measures. For those that do disaggregate data, it is often not clear whether the total

scores also include students with disabilities.

Ten states (Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, NewYork, Texas and West Virginia) specifically reported that they exclude students withdisabilities' outcome data from at least one of their reports or do not include data on studentswith disabilities on one outcome indicator. These states were very clear as to what theirreporting practices are when it comes to students with disabilities.

Figure 15 shows how one state reports a broad list of conditions under which students may beexempted from state testing. It is not clear in this report whether some or all students in thesecategories were excluded.

Accountability documents that reported on the exemption of students from testing were rare.Only eight states (Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Texas, Vermont andWashington) reported the number of students exempted from testing. Of those eight, fourstates (Connecticut, New York, Texas and Washington) specified the number of students withdisabilities exempted from the test. Figure 16 shows one state, Washington, that requiresdistricts to submit an "answer document" for every student enrolled. If a student is not tested,then districts must provide brief descriptive information about the student and indicate thereason he or she was not tested. Some of the reasons for exemption included: absent, special

education student, limited English proficient student, withdrawn, student parent refusal,disruptive, temporary crisis, no reason given.

NCEO 21

Page 28: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Table 2: States that Report Test-Based Outcome Data for Students with DisabilitiesState Name of Test Notes on ReportingConnecticut Connecticut Mastery Test

Connecticut AcademicPerformance Test

Statewide percentage of students and special educationstudents at or above state goal. It is not clear whetherscores of students with disabilities are included in thegeneral test scores.

_Disaggregated data on students with disabilities. It isnot clear whether scores of students with disabilities areincluded in the general test scores. These data are in aseparate special education report.

Delaware Interim Assessment Program Aggregates all students with the exception of someLimited English Proficiency students and some specialeducation students. Scores for students who wereassessed with minor accommodations are aggregated intogeneral test reporting and scores for students who wereassessed with major accommodations are not included.Accountability report does not include definitions ofmajor or minor accommodations. No disaggregated dataare provided.

Georgia Graduation Tests Includes aggregated and disaggregated data on studentswith disabilities. Excludes students with disabilitiesfrom comparisons to prior years.

Scores of students with disabilities are excluded fromreporting on the Curriculum-Based Assessment Program.

It is not clear whether students with disabilities areincluded in the Writing Assessment for grades 5 & 8,Advanced Placement Exams, or in standardizedachievement testing.

Kansas Kansas Assessments inMathematics, Reading, & Writing

Mastery of Algebraic Concepts

Lists the number of students with disabilities bycategory who were tested, but it is not clear whetherthese scores are aggregated into reported results. Givesdisaggregated data.

Louisiana CAT 5, ACT, SAT

Louisiana EducationalAssessment Program (LEAP), &Louisiana High SchoolGraduation Exit Exam

Reports aggregated data for students identified as gifted/talented, speech impaired, and/or hospital/homeboundonly. Scores of other students with disabilities areexcluded.

Disaggregates the percentage of students with disabilitiesattaining cutoff scores. It is not clear whether scores ofstudents with disabilities are included with the regulartest scores. These data are in a separate special education,report.

22

8NCEO

Page 29: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Table 2, cont.State Name of Test Notes on Reporting

New York Pupil Evaluation Program Testsin Reading, Writing and Math

Regents Preliminary CompetencyTests, Regents Competency Test

Occupational EducationProficiency Examinations incommunication systems, produc-tion systems, transportation sys-tems, and clothing and textiles

Disaggregated data. It is not clear whether scores ofstudents with disabilities are included with the regulartest scores.

Disaggregated data. It is not clear whether scores ofstudents with disabilities are included with the regulartest scores.

Reports data for students with disabilities and regulareducation students who are in vocational programs.Disaggregated data are presented in both separate andgeneral reports.

North Carolina End-of-grade and end-of-coursetests in reading, writing andmathematics

Disaggregated data. It is not clear whether scores ofstudents with disabilities are included with the regulartest scores.

It is not clear whether students with disabilities areincluded in standardized testing or in the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

Rhode Island MAT7 Disaggregated and aggregated data

South Carolina MAT7

South Carolina Basic SkillsAssessment Program

Disaggregated and aggregated data

Disaggregated and aggregated data

It is not clear whether scores of students with disabilitiesare included in reporting of Advanced Placement orcollege entrance examination (SAT/ACT) results.

Texas Texas Assessment of AcademicSkills (TAAS), TAAS/TASPEquivalency Test (secondary exitexam), End-of-course BiologyExam, ACT, SAT

Disaggregated data. It is not clear whether scores ofstudents with disabilities are included with the regulartest scores.

Students may be exempted from the TAAS if they (1)have received a special education exemption asdetermined by a review committee and specified in thestudent's IEP, or (2) have received a Limited EnglishProficiency exemption, as determined by a reviewcommittee.

Virginia Virginia Literacy Passport Testsin reading, writing andmathematics for Grade 6

Disaggregated results. Students with disabilities whoare pursuing a special diploma are not required toparticipate in the Literacy Testing Program.

It is not clear whether students with disabilities areincluded in standardized testing or in AdvancedPlacement exams.

NCEO 23

Page 30: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 15. Example of Report Detailing Exemptions

Exemptions from Statewide Testing

Conditions under which pupils may be exempted from the statewide testing program arespecified in Arizona Revised Statutes Section 15-744 as listed below:

1. Pupils who are limited English proficient (LEP) may be exempted for up to three years.

2. Pupils who are disabled as defined in the categories below and whose individualeducational plans state that parts or all of the testing requirement would be detrimentalto the pupil may be exempted from the testing requirement

Mild Mental RetardationModerate Mental RetardationSevere Mental RetardationEmotional DisabilitySpecific Learning DisabilityMultiple DisabilitiesAutismVisually ImpairedHearing ImpairedOrthopedically ImpairedSpeech/Language ImpairedTraumatic Brain InjuryOther Health impaired

The governing board of a school district may exempt pupils from testing if they are LEP and areenrolled in an instrucnonal program as prescribed by A.R.S. Secnon 15-754 from the nationallystandardized norm-referenced achievement testing requirement not to exceed three consecutiveyears. The first year of the exemption is the first academic year in which the pupilis enrolledin a school district in this state in grade two or above. The instructional program for limitedEnglish proficient pupils who are exempt from the nationally standardized norm-referencedachievement testing requirement as provided in this subsection shall include an alternativeassessment of achievement to be administered annually pursuant to standards prescribed bythe state board.

School districts shall annually report the number of pupils, by category and by vade level.which were exempted as provided in this section to the Department of Education. TheDepartment shall include this information in their annual report to the Legislature pursuant toSection 15-743.

At the request of a pupil's parent or guardian, the governing board of a school district shalladminister any test required by this Article to pupils exempted from the testing requirementpursuant to this Secnon. Test results for these pupils shall not be included in the summaryresults of tests presc-ibed in Secnon 15-743, but individual results shall be sent to the schooland to the parent or guardian.

In fall 1995. a total of 6.235 pupils who were classified LEP were exempted from thestatewidetesting program. The primary language oi 94.9 percent of these pupils is Spanish.

243 0 NCEO

Page 31: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 16. Example of Report with Information on Exemptions

STUDENTS EXCLUDED FROM TESTINGGrades 4, 8. and 11

The Washington State Assessment Program emphasizes 100 percent accounting for all students eligible for testing in Graces 4, 8. and 11.The numbers of students tested statewide and in each district are compared with the October 1 enrollment counts reported by districts. Theresulting "I Tested" is reported in the tables included in Sections A and B of this report.

There is a considerable range in the percentages of students tested between distnctsesoecially at Grade 11. Basically, stucients may-beexcluded from testing because teachers or other school staff choose to exempt them or because the students (or their parents) exemptthemselves. There are several valid reasons for which teachers may <moose to exempt students from testing (e.g., students are inself-contained special education, students have very limited or no unoerstanding of the English language. or stucients are involved in atemporary but senous emotional crisis). Students exclucte themselves by refusing to participate or by aosenting themselves from school

during the testing.

Districts are required to suomit an answer document for every student enrolled on October 1. If a student is not tested, districts must providebhef descriptive information about the student anti indicate the reason ne or sne was not testeo. The table below summarizes the numoersof students and the reasons distr)cts reported why they were not tested in the fall 1995 State Assessment Program. Clearly, studentabsence is the most frequent reason students in Grade 11 are not tested: whereas enrollment in special education programs is the singlemost frequent reason students were not tested in Graoes 4 and 8. The numbers of students not tested or unaccounted for at Grade 11 isalmost three times those at Grades 4 or 8.

Washington State Grades 4, 8, and 11Fall 1995Number and Reason Students Not Tested

Number of Students Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 11 I

With Reouired Subtestsa 66,044 (87.8%) 65,341 (87.1%) 49.455 (75.2%)

With Total Battery (basic)3 67,458 (89.7%) 70.614 (89.1%)

At Least One Subtesf 70,562 (93.8%) 70,614 (94.1%) 52.727 (80.2%)

Excluded (see reasons below) 3.727 (5.0%) 3.403 (4.5%) 8.605 (13.1%)

Not TesteC (no reason given)5 984 (1.3%) 1,021 (1.4%) 4.405 ( 6.7%)

[Total Enrollment° 75,243 75.038 65.737

Reason Not Testeg Amiga Grade 8 Grade 11

Absent 203 664 4,089

Special Education 1,821 1,197 1.341

Limited English 876 731 918

Withdrawn 349 436 1,294

Student/Parent Refusal 293 206 673

Disruptive 89 124 105

Temporary Crisis 71 28 71

Other 25 17 114

No reason given? 954 1.021 4.405

Total Not Tested 4.681 4,424 13.010

4tti and 8th-grade students with ail six required CTSS/4 subtestsreading, language, mathematics, spelling. saence, and social stutlies:11th grade students with all four required CFAS subtestsEnglish/LA, history/SS. math, and science.

a 4th and 8th grade students with CTBS/4 reading, language, and math subtests.

Students wno took one or more, but not all. suotests.

° October 1 enrollment less the sum of the number tested with at least one subtest and the number reported as excluded.

e State estimates of the October 1 enrollment counts reported by school districts on OSPI Form P-223.

Distncts reported students as enrolled, but gave no reason for not testing them.

Table Note: Percentages in parentheses are calculated from the total October 1 enrollment tor the grade level.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

NCEO 25

31

Page 32: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Separate special education reports. Of the 47 states (plus Washington DC) thathave a current accountability report, a handful devote a separate document to state specialeducation student outcomes. Five states (Arkansas, Connecticut, Louisiana, New Jersey, andNew York) report on various indicators for special education students. Only Connecticut,Louisiana, and New York have test-based outcome data in the separate special educationreport. Ohio has a separate special education report, but it does not provide state level data.Connecticut indicates that it creates its special education report because it has the "duty toprovide opportunities for all students with disabilities to achieve statewide student goals"(Special Education in Connecticut 1994-95, CT State Dept. of Education, January 1996, p. 1).New Jersey reports that its special education document is designed as a reference book to assistNew Jersey' s special education community in planning and evaluating educational efforts forpupils with educational disabilities. New York and Connecticut also specifically state in theirreports that they compile this information in order to meet state requirements to describe specialeducation programs, and educational results for students with disabilities; however, only threestates (Connecticut, Louisiana, New York) also provide test data for students with disabilitiesin their reports. Of special note, Connecticut and New York also report the number of studentsexempted from testing in their special education reports. Of the states that produce a specialeducation report, two states (Connecticut and New York) also include information on specialeducation students in another accountability document that the state annually produces.

Disaggregated special education student data. Of the 11 states that reporttest-based outcome data on students with disabilities (see Table 2), 10 provide disaggregateddata (all except Delaware). Eight of these states present these data in their regularaccountability reports (Georgia, Kansas, North Carolina, New York, Rhode Island, SouthCarolina, Texas, and Virginia). Two states (Connecticut and Louisiana) present their test-based outcome data only in a separate special education report (New York presents data in bothtypes of reports). Figure 17 shows another example (see also Figure 13) of how a state reportstesting results and other outcome data for students with disabilities.

Summary

Variability is the best word to summarize what we found in our analysis of state reports.Accountability reports can contain a great deal of useful information, and serve many purposesfor many different audiences. Many differences exist in the reporting of regular and specialeducation. These differences are highlighted in Table 3.

26 NCEO

Page 33: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Figure 17. Example of Report Showing Outcome Data for Students with Disabilities

Special education students' living skills and opportunitiesare improving within the state. On Objective IV: IncreasingSpecial Education Students' Living Skills and Opportunities,improvement occurred statewide on four out of six indicators overthe last four years. In particular, three indicators (i.e.,attendance, work experience, and co-curricular participation)showed marked improvement.

Table IV.Statewide Improvement on Objective IV:Increasing Special Education Students'

Living Skills and Opportunities

Indicator

StatewidePercentageImprovement1990-91 to1993-94

StatewidePercentageImprovement1992-93 to1993-94

IV.1 Attendance, Special Education 7 2

IV.2 Dropouts, Special Education 1 o

IV.3 Regular or Advanced StudiesDiploma, Special Education

-1 0

IV.4 Literacy Passport 6th GradePass Rate, Special Education

-1 0

IV.5. Work Experience 3 -3.

IV.6 Co-Curricular Participation 4 1

Table 3: Regular Versus Special Education in State Accountability ReportingRegular Education Students with DisabilitiesAll states report outcome data.

Most states report on a variety of educationalindicators, with inputs, processes and outcomesincluded.

Most states report regular and special education inthe same report.

Few states report outcome data for students withdisabilities.

Cost data (inputs) and enrollment (process) are themost commonly reported educational indicators.

Every state reports some data for which it is unclearwhether students with disabilities were included.

Of the five states with a special education report, twostates do not mention students with disabilities in anyother report.

NCEO

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3 3

27

Page 34: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Issues and Recommendations L.,

Accountability systems will always vary by state, according to the needs and circumstancesrelevant to that state; however, even within this needed variability, there are some commonrecommendations that are relevant to all states:

Specify the target audience for each report, and gear the information to thataudience.If possible, gain input from the targeted audiences on information needs.Provide a "pyramid of information" with a brief, easy-to-understand report forquick reference, and more detailed information available to those who need it.Avoid a great deal of overlap between reports.Make the purpose of the accountability system clear, and provide the readerwith information on the appropriate and inappropriate use of information (suchas whether to make comparisons between districts).Choose educational indicators carefully and maintain some consistency amongdifferent reports.

We also have the following suggestions for reporting on students with disabilities.Be clear about the role of students with disabilities in data and standards. Ifmaking references to "all" students, then "all" students should include studentswith disabilities.While special education reports can be very useful in providing detailedinformation about students with disabilities, general accountability reportsshould also include information on students with disabilities.When making comparisons among schools, districts, and states, and even whenmaking longitudinal comparisons, comparisons should be based on similarpopulations. It is important to know the characteristics of the students whosescores are being compared, such as the number of students with disabilities, thesocioeconomic status of students, and other characteristics.

Public Law 105-17, the reauthorization of IDEA, was recently passed by Congress and signedinto law by President Clinton. It requires that students with disabilities be included inaccountability reporting. Now is the time to look at how states approach accountabilityreporting, and incorporate suggestions for best practice in including data for students withdisabilities in these reports. If students with disabilities are not included in accountabilityreporting, it is difficult for parents, educators, administrators, government personnel and thegeneral public to know that these students are making adequate progress toward educationalgoals! Indeed, ac'countability reports will need to disaggregate the data of students withdisabilities, choose educational indicators carefully, and provide clear information to allintended audiences.

28 NCEO3 (1

Page 35: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

References

Arizona Department of Education. (1996). Arizona pupil achievement testing 1995-1996school year. Phoenix, AZ: Author.

Bond, L.A., Braskamp, D., & Roeber, E. (1996). The status report of the assessmentprograms in the United States: State Student Assessment Programs Database school year1994-1995. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers and North CentralRegional Laboratory.

Brauen, M.L., O'Reilly, F., & Moore, J. (1994). Issues and options in outcomes-basedaccountability for students with disabilities. Rockford, MD: Westat, Inc.

Bruininks, R.H., Deno, S.L., McGrew, K.S., Shriner, J.G., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke,J.E. (1991). Assessing educational outcomes: State activity and literature integration(Synthesis Report 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center onEducational Outcomes.

College of Education and Human Development. (1996). Minnesota educational accountabilityreporting system: Feasibility and design study (vol. 1). Minneapolis, MN: College ofEducation and Human Development, University of Minnesota.

Connecticut State Board of Education. (1997). Special.education in Connecticut 1995-1996.Hartford, CT: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (1995). State education accountability reports andindicator reports: Status of reports across the states 1995. Washington, DC: Council of ChiefState School Officers.

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

Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Thor, K.A. (1995). State special education outcomes1994. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1996). Neglected numerators, driftingdenominators, and fractured fractions: Determining participation rates for students with

NCEO 29

3 5

Page 36: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

disabilities in statewide assessment programs (Synthesis Report 23). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Geenen, K., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995). A disability perspective on fiveyears of education reform (Synthesis Report 22). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Louisiana Department of Education Office of Research and Development. (1995). 1993-94Louisiana progress profiles: District composite report of Catahoula Parish. Baton Rouge, LA:Louisiana Department of Education.

New Jersey State Department of Education. (1997). Special education: A statistical report forthe 1995-1996 school year. Trenton, NJ: Author.

Oakes, J. (1986). Educational indicators: A guide for policymakers. Santa Monica, CA:RAND, Center for Policy Research in Education.

Oregon Department of Education. (1996). Oregon report card 1995-96: An annual report tothe state legislature on Oregon public schools. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1995). The Pennsylvania system of schoolassessment: 1994-95 school-by-school results. Harrisburg, PA: Author.

Rhode Island Department of Education. (1994). Rhode Island public schools: 1994 Districtprofiles. Providence, RI: Author.

Shavelson, R., McDonnell, L., & Oakes, J. (1989). Indicators for monitoring mathematicsand science education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Shavelson, R., McDonnell, L., Oakes, J., & Carey, M. (1987). Indicator systems formonitoring mathematics and science education. RAND' s report to the National ScienceFoundation (NSF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

South Carolina Department of Education. (1995). Data update: 1995 results of the BasicSkills Assessment Program (BSAP). Columbia, SC: Author.

South Dakota Department of Education and Cultural Affairs. (1996). Education in SouthDakota: A statistical profile. Pierre, SD: Author.

30 30 NCEO

Page 37: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Texas Education Agency. (1995). Glossary for the Academic Excellence Indicator System:1994-95 Report. Austin, TX: Author.

Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K.L.H., Nelson, J.R., Shin, H., & Coleman, J.E. (1997).State summaries: Information in accountability reports (Working Report 5). Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995a). A compilation of states' guidelinesfor accommodations in assessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 18).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995b). A compilation of states' guidelinesfor including students with disabilities in assessment (Synthesis Report 17). Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Virginia Department of Education. (1995). Summary of statewide results: 1995 Outcomeaccountability project. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education.

Washington Department of Education. (1996). Fall 1995 district-level summaries: Grades 4,8 and 11. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Education.

Ysseldyke, J.E. (1996). Overview of the issues of participation and inclusion of studentswith disabilities in large-scale assessment programs. A presentation at a Council of Chief StateSchool Officers SCASS Special Education Assessment meeting in Tampa, Florida.

NCEO 31

3 7

Page 38: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Appendix: State Accountability Document Tables

This appendix contains summary information about the accountability documents that weregiven to us by each of the states and Washington DC. The information is presented inincreasing levels of detail. Table A gives a general overview of the focus of the documents foreach state. Tables B, C, and D provide information for each document that was provided tous. Also available is Working Report 5, State Summaries: Information in AccountabilityReports (see Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Shin, & Coleman, 1997), which contains detailedsummaries of each state' s accountability system. These 2-4 page summaries for each stateprovide detailed information on the contents of each of the reports, including indicators used,and a narrative account of which data are presented regarding students with disabilities. Ananalysis of some of the data that can be obtained from these tables is given in the main body ofthis report. A glossary of the educational indicators used as well as a legend of symbols usedis included with each of the tables.

Table A: Number of Documents and Characteristics of AccountabilitySystemThis table contains information on the focus of the accountability reports that were given to usby each of the states and Washington DC. This table is designed to give a general overview ofthe focus of the accountability system in the state, based on the total documents given to us.The table indicates whether we reviewed a single document or multiple documents, andwhether we received a separate report for special education. The table also shows whetherthese documents, taken as a whole, present data as inputs/contexts, processes, or outcomes(see definitions in the text), and whether these data were presented for regular educationstudents and/or special education students.

Overview of Individual Accountability DocumentsTables B through D contain information on each of the accountability documents provided to usby the states and Washington DC.

Table B: Level of Data Reported and Purposes/Consequences ofAccountability SystemThis table contains information about the level of data reported for each of the accountabilitydocuments as well as the stated purposes and consequences of the accountability system.Please note that this table only indicates what the documents themselves say about the purposesand consequences of the accountability system. Level of data refer to the level of detail givenin the accountability documents. Reports may provide state, district, and/or schoolwideaverages for test data collected in the state during a particular school year.

NCEO 33

38

Page 39: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Table C: Test-Based Educational IndicatorsThis table contains performance data on national, state and local criterion-referenced andstandardized testing.

Table D: Nontest DataThis table shows which reports used educational indicators that are not directly related to testperformance.

34 NCEO

3 9

Page 40: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le A

. Num

ber

of D

ocum

ents

and

Cha

ract

eris

tics

of A

ccou

ntab

ility

Sys

tem

Sing

le A

ccou

nt-

abili

ty R

epor

tM

ultip

leR

epor

tsSe

para

te R

epor

tfo

r Sp

ecia

l Ed.

Rep

ort F

ocus

Inpu

ts/C

onte

xtPr

oces

ses

Out

com

es

Reg

ular

Ed.

Spec

ial E

d.R

egul

ar E

d.Sp

ecia

l Ed.

Reg

ular

Ed.

Spec

ial E

d.

Ala

bam

aX

X?

XD

isag

/?X

Exc

l

Ala

ska

XX

?X

Dis

ag/?

X%

& #

onl

y

Ari

zona

XX

?X

?X

Exc

l/Not

spe

c

Ark

ansa

sX

XX

Dis

ag/?

XD

isag

/?X

?

Cal

ifor

nia

Cur

rent

ly u

nder

rev

isio

nC

olor

ado

XX

Dis

ag/?

XD

isag

l?X

?

Con

nect

icut

XX

XD

isag

/?X

Dis

agX

Dis

ag/?

Del

awar

eX

XA

gg/E

xcl/?

D.C

.X

X?

XA

gg/D

isag

l?X

?

Flor

ida

XX

?X

Dis

ag/?

X?

Geo

rgia

XX

?X

?X

Agg

/Dis

agg/

Exc

l/Not

spe

c

Haw

aii

XX

Dis

ag/?

XD

isag

/?X

?

Idah

oX

XA

gg/?

X?

Illin

ois

XX

?X

?X

?In

dian

aX

X?

XD

isag

/?X

?

Iow

aX

XD

isag

l?X

?X

?

Kan

sas

XX

?X

?X

#/D

isag

/Not

spec

Ken

tuck

yX

X?

X?

Lou

isia

naX

XX

Exc

l/?X

Dis

ag/E

xcl/?

XD

isag

/Not

spec

/Exc

l

Mai

neX

X?

XA

gg/D

isag

/?X

?

Mar

ylan

dX

X?

X?

X?

Mas

sach

uset

tsX

XD

isag

t?X

?X

?

Mic

higa

nX

X?

X?

X?

Min

neso

taC

urre

ntly

und

er d

evel

opm

ent

Mis

siss

ippi

XX

Dis

ag/?

XD

isag

/?X

Exc

l

Mis

sour

iX

XD

isag

/?X

Dis

ag/?

X?

435

41

Page 41: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

4 2

Tab

le A

, con

t. Sing

le A

ccou

nt-

abili

ty R

epor

tM

ultip

leR

epor

tsSe

para

te R

epor

tfo

r Sp

ecia

l Ed.

Rep

ort F

ocus

Inpu

ts/C

onte

xtPr

oces

ses

Out

com

es

Reg

ular

Ed.

Spec

ial E

d.R

egul

ar E

d.Sp

ecia

l Ed.

Reg

ular

Ed.

Spec

ial E

d.M

onta

naX

X?

Neb

rask

aX

Und

er d

ev.

XE

xcl/?

XD

isag

/?X

?N

evad

aX

X?

XD

isag

/?X

?N

ew H

amps

hire

XX

?X

Dis

ag/?

X?

New

Jer

sey

XX

XD

isag

/?X

Dis

ag/?

XE

xcl

New

Mex

ico

XX

?X

?X

?N

ew Y

ork

XX

X?

XD

isag

/?X

Agg

/Di s

ag/

Exc

l/?N

orth

Car

olin

aX

X?

XD

i sag

/?X

Dis

ag/N

ot s

pec

Nor

th D

akot

aX

XD

isag

/?X

Dis

agX

?O

hio

XX

Dis

ag/?

XD

isag

/?X

?O

klah

oma

XX

?X

Dis

ag/?

X?

Ore

gon

XX

?X

Dis

agX

?Pe

nnsy

lvan

iaX

X?

X?

X?

Rho

de I

slan

dX

X?

XD

i sag

/?X

Agg

/Di s

ag/

Not

spe

cSo

uth

Car

olin

aX

X?

XD

isag

/?X

Dis

ag/A

gg/

Not

spe

cSo

uth

Dak

ota

XX

?X

Dis

ag/?

X?

Ten

ness

eeX

X?

X?

X?

Tex

asX

XA

gg/D

isag

/?X

Agg

/Dis

ag/?

XD

isag

/Agg

/Exc

l/N

ot S

pec

?U

tah

XX

?X

Dis

agX

Ver

mon

tX

X?

XD

isag

/?X

?V

irgi

nia

XX

?X

Dis

ag/?

XD

isag

/?W

ashi

ngto

nX

X?

Wes

t Vir

gini

aX

X?

X?

XE

xcl

Wis

cons

inX

X?

X?

X?

Wyo

min

gN

o re

port

ava

ilabl

e

36

4 3

Page 42: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Glo

ssar

y of

Ind

icat

ors

for

Tab

le A

Indi

cato

r/T

erm

Def

initi

on

Inpu

ts/C

onte

xts

Acc

ount

abili

ty in

dica

tors

that

des

crib

e th

e st

uden

t's le

arni

ngen

viro

nmen

t as

wel

l as

dem

ogra

phic

cha

ract

eris

tics

of th

e pa

rtic

ular

dist

rict

's p

opul

atio

n (e

.g.,

staf

f ra

tios,

cos

t, so

cioe

cono

mic

sta

tus)

.

Proc

esse

sN

onte

st a

ccou

ntab

ility

indi

cato

rs th

at d

escr

ibe

stud

ent p

artic

ipat

ion

and

scho

ol d

istr

ict e

valu

atio

n (e

.g.,

enro

llmen

t, at

tend

ance

, acc

redi

tatio

nst

atus

).

Out

com

es:

Dat

a th

at f

ocus

on

the

end

resu

lt of

a s

tude

nt's

lear

ning

pro

cess

. Can

incl

ude

both

test

dat

a (i

.e. r

esul

ts o

f pe

rfor

man

ce o

n ac

hiev

emen

t tes

ts)

or n

onte

st d

ata

(e.g

., dr

op-o

ut r

ates

, gra

duat

ion

rate

s).

Leg

end

of S

ymbo

ls f

or T

able

A

Sym

bol/T

erm

Def

initi

on

XT

he s

tate

doe

s pr

ovid

e in

form

atio

n on

that

indi

cato

r in

at l

east

one

of

itsdo

cum

ents

.

? Not

spe

cifi

ed (

Not

spe

c)It

is u

ncle

ar o

r no

t spe

cifi

ed w

heth

er s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

ein

clud

ed in

the

data

Exc

lude

d (E

xcl)

Stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

e no

t inc

lude

d in

the

data

.

Agg

rega

ted

(Agg

)D

ata

for

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

have

bee

n in

clud

ed w

ith th

e re

gula

red

ucat

ion

data

.

Dis

aggr

egat

ed (

Dis

ag)

Dat

a fo

r st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s ar

e re

port

ed s

epar

ate

from

reg

ular

educ

atio

n da

ta.

# te

sted

(#)

Doc

umen

ts r

epor

t the

num

ber

of s

tude

nts

who

par

ticip

ated

in te

stin

g.

% te

sted

(%

)D

ocum

ents

rep

ort t

he %

of

stud

ents

who

wer

e in

clud

ed in

test

ing.

Com

bina

tions

(e.

g.,

Agg

/Dis

ag/E

xcl/N

ot s

pec)

Mea

ns th

at o

n di

ffer

ent i

ndic

ator

s or

in d

iffe

rent

rep

orts

, dat

a w

ere

aggr

egat

ed, d

isag

greg

ated

, exc

lude

d or

not

spe

cifi

ed.

4 4

37

Page 43: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le B

. Lev

el o

f D

ata

Rec

orde

d; S

tate

d Pu

rpos

es/C

onse

quen

ces;

Sta

ted

Aud

ienc

es o

f R

epor

ts

Stat

eR

epor

t

Dat

a R

epor

ted

By

Purp

oses

/Con

seq.

of

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

mA

udie

nces

Stat

eD

ist.

Sch.

Dip

l.A

ccr.

Fin.

Aid

Tec

h.A

sst.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Gen

.Pu

blic

Pare

ntT

chrs

/A

dmin

.G

ovt.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Ala

bam

aA

nnua

l Rep

ort:

1994

Sta

tistic

al a

ndFi

nanc

ial D

ata

for

1993

(A

R)

XX

XX

Ann

ual S

tatu

s R

epor

t on

the

Con

di-

tion

of E

duca

tion

1993

-94

(ASR

)X

XX

XX

Ala

ska

Sum

mar

y of

Ala

ska'

s Pu

blic

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

ts' R

epor

t Car

ds to

the

Publ

ic:

Scho

ol Y

ear

1994

-95

(RC

P)

XX

XX

XX

X

Ari

zona

Ari

zona

Pup

il A

chie

vem

ent T

estin

g19

95-9

6 Sc

hool

Yea

r (A

PAT

)X

XX

X

Ari

zona

Sch

ool R

pt C

ard

95-9

6 (S

RC

)X

XX

X

Ark

ansa

sA

rkan

sas

Ann

ual S

choo

l Dis

tric

tR

epor

t Car

d (A

ASD

R)

XX

XX

1995

-96

Ann

ual R

epor

t of

the

Adv

isor

y C

ounc

il fo

r th

e E

duca

tion

ofC

hild

ren

with

Dis

abili

ties

(AR

AC

)

XX

XX

Cal

ifor

nia

Cur

rent

ly u

nder

rev

isio

n

Col

orad

oH

igh

Exp

ecta

tions

, Hig

h A

chie

ve-

men

ts: S

tate

Rep

ort C

ard

1995

(SR

C)

XX

X

Con

nect

icut

A P

rofi

le o

f ou

r Sc

hool

s: C

ondi

tion

of E

duca

tion

in C

T 1

993-

94 (

POS)

XX

XX

XX

X

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

in C

T (

SEC

)X

XX

XD

elaw

are

Del

awar

e In

teri

m A

sses

smen

t Rep

ort

1993

-95

(IA

)A

Fiv

e Y

ear

Stat

istic

al G

lanc

e at

D.C

.Pu

blic

Sch

ools

: Sch

ool Y

ears

199

0-91

thro

ugh

1994

-95

(FY

SG)

X X

X X

X X

X X

X XX

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

a

Flor

ida

1994

Sch

ool P

ublic

Acc

ount

abili

tyR

epor

t (SP

AR

)X

XX

XX

1994

-95

Scho

ol A

dvis

ory

Cou

ncil

Rep

ort (

SAC

R)

XX

XX

X

Geo

rgia

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

Cur

ricu

lum

-ba

sed

Ass

essm

ent P

rog

Res

ults

(C

BA

)X

XX

X

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

GA

Hig

hSc

hool

Gra

duat

ion

Tes

ts (

HSG

T)

XX

XX

XX

XX

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

GA

Gra

des

5&

8 W

ritin

g A

sses

smen

ts (

WA

)X

XX

XX

XX

X

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

GA

Nor

m-

refe

renc

ed T

est S

core

s (N

RT

)X

XX

XX

XX

X

384

7

Page 44: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le B

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Dat

a R

epor

ted

By

Purp

oses

/Con

seq.

of

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

mA

udie

nces

Stat

eD

ist.

Sch.

Dip

l.A

ccr.

Fin.

Aid

Tec

h.A

sst.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Gen

.Pu

blic

Pare

ntT

chrs

/A

dmin

.G

ovt.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Geo

rgia

, con

t.St

atew

ide

Med

ians

Sch

ool S

yste

mPi

lot P

erfo

rman

ce R

epor

t (SS

PPR

)X

XX

Haw

aii

The

Sup

erin

tend

enes

Fif

th A

nnua

lR

epor

t on

Scho

ol P

erfo

rman

ce a

ndIm

prov

emen

t in

Haw

aii (

AR

)

XX

X

Scho

ol S

tatu

s an

d Im

prov

emen

tR

epor

t: Sc

hool

Yea

r 19

94-9

5 (S

SIR

)X

X

Idah

o19

93-9

4 ID

Sch

ool P

rofi

les

(SP)

XX

XX

1994

-95

Ann

ual S

tatis

tical

Rpt

(A

SR)

XX

XX

X

Illin

ois

Scho

ol R

epor

t Car

d 19

94-9

5 (S

RC

)X

XX

XX

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

t in

Illin

ois

(SSA

I)X

XX

Indi

ana

Perf

orm

ance

-bas

ed A

ccre

dita

tion

Man

ual (

PBA

)X

X

Indi

ana

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion'

sW

ebpa

ge (

IW)

XX

XX

X

Iow

aT

he A

nnua

l Con

ditio

n of

Edu

catio

nR

epor

t (A

CE

R)

XX

X

Kan

sas

Acc

ount

abili

ty R

epor

t 199

3-94

(A

R)

XX

XX

Kan

sas

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am: R

esul

tsof

199

5 M

ath.

, Rea

ding

, Sci

ence

&So

cial

Stu

dies

Ass

essm

ent (

KA

P)

XX

XX

X

Ken

tuck

y19

94-9

5 K

Y A

sses

smen

t Res

ults

for

Scho

ols

& D

istr

icts

(K

AR

SD)

XX

XX

X

1994

-95

KY

Mid

poin

t Acc

ount

abili

tyR

esul

ts f

or S

choo

ls &

Dis

tric

ts:

Scho

ol &

Dis

t. Sc

ore

Lis

ting

(KM

AR

)

XX

XX

Lou

isia

na19

93-9

4 L

ouis

iana

Pro

gres

s Pr

ofile

sSt

ate

Rep

ort (

SR)

XX

XX

XX

X

1993

-94

Prog

ress

Pro

file

s D

istr

ict

Com

posi

te R

epor

t (D

CR

)X

XX

XX

XX

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

Dat

a R

epor

t (SE

DR

)X

XX

X

Mai

neM

aine

's E

duca

tion

Dat

a &

Sta

ts (

MD

S)X

XX

XX

Mar

ylan

dM

D S

choo

l Per

form

ance

Rep

ort,

1995

: Sta

te &

Sch

ool S

yste

ms

(SPR

)X

XX

XX

X

Mas

sach

uset

tsM

assa

chus

etts

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Prof

iles

(199

6) (

MSD

P)X

XX

XX

4839

49

Page 45: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

50

Tab

le B

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Dat

a R

epor

ted

By

Purp

oses

/Con

seq.

of

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

mA

udie

nces

Stat

eD

ist.

Sch.

Dip

l.A

ccr.

Fin.

Aid

Tec

h.A

sst.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Gen

.Pu

blic

Pare

ntT

chrs

/A

dmin

.

-

Gov

t.O

ther

Not

Spec

.

Mic

higa

nM

ichi

gan

Scho

ol R

epor

t (M

SR)

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

Spri

ng 1

996

Mic

higa

n E

duca

tiona

lA

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

Sta

tew

ide

Res

ults

(H

igh

Scho

ol P

rofi

cien

cyT

ests

) (S

ME

AP)

XX

XX

X

Min

neso

taN

o re

port

ava

ilabl

e

Mis

siss

ippi

MS

Rep

ort C

ard

1995

(M

RC

)X

XX

XM

isso

uri

Prof

iles

of M

O P

ublic

Sch

ools

:Fi

nanc

ial,

Pupi

l & S

taff

Dat

a fo

rFi

scal

Yea

r 19

93-9

4 (P

MPS

)

XX

X

1992

-93

Prof

iles

Rep

ort o

f th

e Pu

blic

Scho

ols

of M

O (

RPS

M)

XX

XX

X

Mon

tana

MT

Sta

tew

ide

Sum

mar

y: N

orm

-ref

er-

ence

d St

uden

t Ass

essm

ent R

epor

ting

for

the

Scho

ol Y

ear

1994

-95

(MSS

)

XX

X

Neb

rask

aR

epor

t of

the

Neb

rask

a Sc

hool

sA

ccou

ntab

ility

Com

mis

sion

(R

NSA

C)

XX

X

Lin

coln

Pub

lic S

choo

ls 1

995

Ann

ual

Rep

ort (

LPS

AR

)X

XX

X

Nev

ada

Ana

lysi

s of

NV

Acc

ount

abili

tySy

stem

(A

NSA

S)X

XX

X

New

Ham

pshi

reE

duca

tiona

l Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t (E

AR

)X

XX

XX

XSt

atis

tical

Rep

ort 1

(SR

I)X

XX

XX

Stat

istic

al R

epor

t 2: E

duca

tor

Rep

ort

(SR

2)X

XX

X

Stat

istic

al R

epor

t 3: R

ace

of P

upils

Enr

olle

d in

NH

Sch

ools

(SR

3)X

XX

X

New

Jer

sey

Apr

il 19

95 G

rade

11

Hig

h Sc

hool

Prof

icie

ncy

Tes

t: St

ate

Sum

mar

y (S

S)X

XX

XX

Mar

ch 1

995

Gra

de 8

Ear

ly W

arni

ngT

est:

Stat

e Su

mm

ary

(SSE

WT

)X

XX

XX

Spec

ial E

duca

tion:

A S

tatis

tical

Rep

t.fo

r 19

95-9

6 Sc

hool

Yea

r (S

ESR

)X

XX

X

New

Mex

ico

The

Acc

ount

abili

ty R

epor

t 199

4-95

:In

dica

tors

of

the

Con

ditio

n of

Pub

licE

duca

tion

in N

M (

AR

)

XX

XX

40

51

Page 46: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le B

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Dat

a R

epor

ted

By

Purp

oses

/Con

seq.

of

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

mA

udie

nces

Stat

eD

ist.

Sch.

Dip

l.A

ccr.

Fin.

Aid

Tec

h.A

sst.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Gen

.Pu

blic

Pare

ntT

chrs

/A

dmin

.G

ovt.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

New

Yor

kSt

atis

tical

Pro

file

s of

Pub

lic S

choo

lD

istr

icts

(SP

PSD

)X

XX

XX

Stat

ewid

e Pr

ofile

of

the

Edu

catio

nal

Syst

em (

SPE

S)X

XX

X

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t Rpt

: Ref

-er

ence

Gro

up S

umm

arie

s, P

t 1 (

CA

R I

)X

XX

X

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t Rpt

: Ref

-er

ence

Gro

up S

umm

arie

s, P

t 2 (

CA

R2)

XX

XX

Con

solid

ated

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

nPe

rfor

man

ce R

pt f

or 1

993-

94 (

CSP

R)

XX

XX

The

NY

Sch

ool R

epor

t Car

d: E

lem

en-

tary

and

Sec

onda

ry P

roto

type

s (S

RC

)X

XX

XX

1996

Poc

ketb

ook

of G

oals

& R

esul

tsfo

r In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

itilit

ies

(PB

)X

XX

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Rep

ort C

ard:

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Supp

lem

ent (

NC

RC

)X

XX

XX

X

Stat

e of

the

Stat

e of

Edu

catio

nPe

rfor

man

ce in

NC

, 199

4 (S

SEP)

XX

XX

X

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Scho

ol B

uild

ing

Impr

ovem

ent R

ecor

d (N

CSB

IR)

XX

X

The

Sta

te o

f Sc

hool

Sys

tem

s 19

95R

epor

t Car

d (S

SSR

)X

XX

XX

X

1993

-94

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e T

estin

gR

esul

ts (

NC

STR

)X

XX

XX

Nor

th C

arol

ina

End

-of-

Gra

de T

estin

gPr

ogra

m (

NC

EG

T)

XX

XX

Nor

th D

akot

aSc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

Tes

t Sco

res

1975

-19

95 (

SAT

S)X

XX

Nor

th D

akot

a A

mer

ican

Col

lege

Tes

tR

esul

ts (

1995

) (A

CT

R)

XX

X

Scho

ol F

inan

ce F

acts

(Ja

n '9

5) (

SFF)

XX

XX

XN

D S

choo

l Rep

ort o

f St

ate

Supe

rin-

tend

ent o

f Pu

blic

Ins

truc

tion

(ND

SR)

XX

X

Ohi

oE

duca

tion

Man

agem

ent I

nfo

Syst

em:

Stat

e Pr

ofile

FY

94 v

FY

95 (

EM

IS S

P)X

XX

X

EM

IS D

ist.

Prof

ile F

Y 9

5 (E

MIS

DP)

XX

XX

EM

IS J

oint

Voc

atio

nal S

choo

lD

istr

ict P

rofi

le F

Y 9

5 (E

MIS

JV

)X

XX

X

5 .2

4153

Page 47: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

5 4

Tab

le B

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Dat

a R

epor

ted

By

Purp

oses

/Con

seq.

of

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

mA

udie

nces

Stat

eD

ist.

Sch.

Dip

l.A

ccr.

Fin.

Aid

Tec

h.A

sst.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Gen

.Pu

blic

Pare

ntT

chrs

/A

dmin

.G

ovt.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Ohi

o, c

ont.

EM

IS E

duca

tiona

l Ser

vice

Cen

ter

Prof

ile F

Y 9

5 (E

MIS

ESC

)X

XX

X

Okl

ahom

aO

klah

oma

Edu

catio

nal I

ndic

ator

sPr

ogra

m, S

tate

Rep

ort (

STR

)X

XX

Okl

ahom

a E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Prog

ram

, Dis

tric

t Rep

ort (

DR

)X

XX

OK

Edu

catio

nal I

ndic

ator

s Pr

ogra

m,

Dis

tric

t His

tori

cal R

epor

t (D

HR

)X

XX

Okl

ahom

a E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Prog

ram

, Sch

ool R

epor

t (SR

)X

X

Dis

tric

t Fin

anci

al R

epor

t: R

esul

ts19

94 (

DFR

)X

X

1993

-94

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Cur

ricu

lum

Rev

iew

(SS

CR

)X

XX

Ore

gon

OR

Rep

ort C

ard

to L

egis

latu

re (

OR

CL

)X

XX

X

Penn

sylv

ania

Stat

us R

pt o

n E

duca

tion

in P

enns

yl-

vani

a: A

Sta

tistic

al S

umm

ary

(SR

EP)

XX

X

The

Pen

nsyl

vani

a Sy

stem

of

Scho

olA

sses

smen

t:19

94-9

5 Sc

hool

-by-

Scho

ol R

esul

ts (

SSR

)

XX

XX

X

Rho

de I

slan

dR

hode

Isl

and

Publ

ic S

choo

l: 19

94D

istr

ict P

rofi

les

(RID

P)X

XX

X

Stud

ent P

erfo

rman

ce in

Rho

de I

slan

d19

94 (

SPR

I)X

XX

XX

Sout

h C

arol

ina

SC E

duca

tion

Prof

iles

(SC

EP)

XX

XX

XSt

ate

of E

duca

tiona

l Ref

orm

: Wha

t is

the

Penn

y B

uyin

g fo

r SC

? (S

ER

)X

XX

X

Stat

e Pe

rfor

man

ce P

rofi

le (

SPP)

XX

XX

1995

Res

ults

of

the

Bas

ic S

kills

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am (

RB

SAP)

XX

X

1995

Res

ults

of

the

Met

ropo

litan

Ach

ieve

men

t Tes

ts, 7

th E

d. (

RM

AT

)X

XX

Sout

h D

akot

aE

duca

tion

in S

outh

Dak

ota:

ASt

atis

tical

Pro

file

(SP

)X

XX

XX

XX

XX

Ten

ness

ee21

st C

entu

ry S

choo

ls R

epor

t Car

dC

heat

ham

Cou

nty

(RC

)X

XX

X

Che

atha

m C

ount

y R

epor

t Car

dSu

pple

men

t (R

CS)

XX

XX

X

425

5

Page 48: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le B

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Dat

a R

epor

ted

By

Purp

oses

/Con

seq.

of

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

mA

udie

nces

Stat

eD

ist.

Sch.

Dip

l.A

ccr.

Fin.

Aid

Tec

h.A

sst.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Gen

.Pu

blic

Pare

ntT

chrs

/A

dmin

.G

ovt.

Oth

erN

otSp

ec.

Tex

asA

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

rSy

stem

Rev

ised

(A

EIS

): C

ampu

sC

ompa

riso

n G

roup

Lis

ting

(CC

)

XX

X

AE

IS: S

ampl

e D

istr

ict a

nd S

choo

lR

epor

ts (

DSR

)X

XX

XX

AE

IS 1

994-

95 S

tate

Per

form

. Rpt

(SR

)X

XX

Snap

shot

'94:

1993

-94

Scho

olD

istr

ict P

rofi

les

(SS)

XX

XX

Uta

hT

he U

tah

Stat

ewid

e T

estin

g Pr

ogra

m19

95 (

UST

PR)

XX

XX

X

94-9

5 Fi

nger

tip F

acts

:Fa

cts

& F

ig-

ures

on

UT

Pub

lic S

choo

l Sys

tem

(FF

)X

XX

1994

-95

Ann

ual R

epor

t of

Stat

e Su

p-er

inte

nden

t of

Publ

ic I

nstr

uctio

n (A

R)

XX

Uta

h's

Maj

or S

tude

nt A

sses

smen

tPr

ogra

ms

(UM

SAP)

XX

XX

Ver

mon

tA

Sco

reca

rd f

or S

choo

l Fin

ance

: Fif

thA

nnua

l Rep

ort (

SSF)

XX

X

Sum

mar

y of

the

Ann

ual S

tatis

tical

Rep

ort o

f th

e Sc

hool

(SA

SRS)

XX

XX

X

VT

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am: A

sses

smen

tR

esul

ts in

Wri

ting

& M

ath.

(V

APR

)X

XX

The

Con

ditio

n of

Edu

catio

n in

VT

:19

94 A

nnua

l Rep

ort (

CE

V)

XX

XX

Vir

gini

a19

95 O

utco

me

Acc

ount

abili

ty P

roje

ct:

Sum

mar

y of

Sta

tew

ide

Rep

orts

(O

AP)

XX

XX

XX

Rep

ort o

f th

e V

irgi

nia

Lite

racy

Tes

ting

Prog

ram

(R

VL

T)

XX

X

Was

hing

ton

WA

Sta

te A

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

:D

istr

ict L

evel

Sum

mar

ies

(WSA

PS).

XX

X

Prel

imin

ary

Res

ults

for

Fal

l 199

5St

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am -

Gra

des

4,8,

& 1

1 (P

RF)

XX

XX

Wes

t Vir

gini

aW

V R

epor

t Car

ds: S

tate

, Cou

nty,

&Sc

hool

Dat

a (W

VR

C)

XX

XX

X

Wis

cons

inSc

hool

Per

form

ance

Rpt

Car

d (W

SPR

)X

XX

XW

yom

ing

No

repo

rt a

vaila

ble.

5643

57

Page 49: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Glo

ssar

y of

Ind

icat

ors

for

Tab

le B

Indi

cato

r R

epor

ted

Def

initi

on

Dat

a ar

e re

port

ed b

y St

ate,

Dis

tric

t, &

/or

Scho

olL

evel

of

deta

il re

port

ed. D

ata

are

pres

ente

d as

sta

te, d

istr

ict o

r sc

hool

aver

ages

.

Dip

lom

aA

ccou

ntab

ility

info

rmat

ion

is u

sed

in a

war

ding

a d

iplo

ma

to s

tude

nts.

Acc

redi

tatio

nA

ccou

ntab

ility

info

rmat

ion

is u

sed

for

accr

edita

tion

purp

oses

.

Fina

ncia

l Aid

Acc

ount

abili

ty in

form

atio

n is

use

d in

the

dist

ribu

tion

of f

inan

cial

aid

.

Tec

hnic

al A

ssis

tanc

eA

ccou

ntab

ility

info

rmat

ion

is u

sed

to d

eter

min

e th

e ne

ed f

or f

inan

cial

assi

stan

ce f

or d

istr

icts

or

scho

ols.

Oth

erA

ccou

ntab

ility

info

rmat

ion

is u

sed

for

othe

r pu

rpos

es th

an th

ose

abov

e

Not

spe

cifi

edPu

rpos

es/c

onse

quen

ces

of a

ccou

ntab

ility

info

rmat

ion

are

not s

peci

fied

in th

e do

cum

ent.

Gen

eral

Pub

licD

ocum

ent s

peci

fica

lly m

entio

ns th

e ge

nera

l pub

lic a

s a

targ

et a

udie

nce:

i.e.,

"citi

zens

," "

taxp

ayer

s,"

"fri

ends

of

publ

ic e

duca

tion,

" et

c.

Pare

nts

Doc

umen

t spe

cifi

cally

men

tions

par

ents

as

a ta

rget

aud

ienc

e

Tea

cher

s/A

dmin

istr

ator

sD

ocum

ent s

peci

fica

lly m

entio

ns te

ache

rs o

r ad

min

istr

ator

s as

a ta

rget

audi

ence

Gov

ernm

ent

Doc

umen

t spe

cifi

cally

men

tions

the

gove

rnm

ent (

gove

rnor

, leg

isla

tors

,sc

hool

boa

rd m

embe

rs, e

tc.)

as

a ta

rget

aud

ienc

e

Oth

erD

ocum

ent s

peci

fica

lly m

entio

ns o

ther

aud

ienc

es, (

i.e.,

rese

arch

ers,

stud

ents

, etc

.)

Not

Spe

cifi

edT

arge

t aud

ienc

e no

t spe

cifi

ed in

doc

umen

t

Leg

end

of S

ymbo

ls f

or T

able

B

Sym

bol/T

erm

Def

initi

on

XT

he d

ocum

ent c

onta

ins

this

info

rmat

ion

5859

44

Page 50: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le C

. Tes

t-B

ased

Edu

catio

nal I

ndic

ator

s

Stat

eR

epor

tT

est

resu

lts

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Tes

ting

Stat

eSt

anda

rds

Seco

nd-

ary

Exi

tE

xam

Col

lege

Ent

ranc

eR

esul

t

End

-of-

Cou

rse

Exa

mA

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t

Com

pari

son

to p

rior

yea

rs

Stat

eD

istr

ict

Scho

olA

laba

ma

Ann

ual R

epor

t:19

94 S

tatis

tical

and

Fina

ncia

l Dat

a fo

r 19

93 (

AR

)A

nnua

l Sta

tus

Rep

ort o

n th

e C

ondi

-tio

n of

Edu

catio

n 19

93-9

4 (A

SR)

E?

??

??

Ala

ska

Sum

mar

y of

Ala

ska'

s Pu

blic

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

ts R

epor

t Car

ds to

the

Publ

ic:

Scho

ol Y

ear

1994

-95

(RC

P)

In?

??

??

Ari

zona

Ari

zona

Pup

il A

chie

vem

ent T

estin

g19

95-9

6 Sc

hool

Yea

r (A

PAT

)E

E

Ari

zona

Sch

ool R

pt C

ard

95-9

6 (S

RC

)?

Ark

ansa

sA

rkan

sas

Ann

ual S

choo

l Dis

tric

tR

epor

t Car

d (A

ASD

R)

??

??

1995

-96

Ann

ual R

epor

t of

the

Adv

isor

y C

ounc

il fo

r th

e E

duca

tion

ofC

hild

ren

with

Dis

abili

ties

(AR

AC

)C

alif

orni

aC

urre

ntly

und

er r

evis

ion

Col

orad

oH

igh

Exp

ecta

tions

, Hig

h A

chie

ve-

men

ts: S

tate

Rep

ort C

ard

1995

(SR

C)

??

?

Con

nect

icut

A P

rofi

le o

f ou

r Sc

hool

s: C

ondi

tion

of E

duca

tion

in C

T 1

993-

94 (

POS)

II

E?

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

in C

T (

SEC

)I

II

Del

awar

eD

elaw

are

Inte

rim

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t19

93-9

5 (I

A)

I/E

I/E

I/E

I/E

I/E

Dis

tric

t of

Col

umbi

aA

Fiv

e Y

ear

Stat

istic

al G

lanc

e at

D.C

.Pu

blic

Sch

ools

: Sch

ool Y

ears

199

0-91

thro

ugh

1994

-95

(FY

SG)

?9 .

?

Flor

ida

1994

Sch

ool P

ublic

Acc

ount

abili

tyR

epor

t (SP

AR

)?

?9 .

1994

-95

Scho

ol A

dvis

ory

Cou

ncil

Rep

ort (

SAC

R)

??

??

??

Geo

rgia

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

Cur

ricu

lum

-ba

sed

Ass

essm

ent P

rog

Res

ults

(C

BA

)E

EE

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

GA

Hig

hSc

hool

Gra

duat

ion

Tes

ts (

HSG

T)

II

E

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

GA

Gra

des

5&

8 W

ritin

g A

sses

smen

ts (

WA

)?

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

GA

Nor

m-

refe

renc

ed T

est S

core

s (N

RT

)?

?

6045

61

Page 51: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le C

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

tT

est

resu

lts

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Tes

ting

Stat

eSt

anda

rds

Seco

nd-

ary

Exi

tE

xam

Col

lege

Ent

ranc

eR

esul

t

End

-of-

Cou

rse

Exa

mA

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t

Com

pari

son

to p

rior

yea

rs

Stat

eD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

Geo

rgia

, con

t.St

atew

ide

Med

ians

Sch

ool S

yste

mPi

lot P

erfo

rman

ce R

epor

t (SS

PPR

)?

??

?

Haw

aii

The

Sup

erin

tend

ent's

Fif

th A

nnua

lR

epor

t on

Scho

ol P

erfo

rman

ce a

ndIm

prov

emen

t in

Haw

aii (

AR

)

??

Scho

ol S

tatu

s an

d Im

prov

emen

tR

epor

t: Sc

hool

Yea

r 19

94-9

5 (S

SIR

)?

?

Idah

o19

93-9

4 ID

Sch

ool P

rofi

les

(SP)

??

1994

-95

Ann

ual S

tatis

tical

Rpt

(A

SR)

Illin

ois

Scho

ol R

epor

t Car

d 19

94-9

5 (S

RC

)?

?Su

mm

ary

of S

tude

nt A

chie

vem

ent i

nIl

linoi

s (S

SAI)

??

Indi

ana

Perf

orm

ance

-bas

ed A

ccre

dita

tion

Man

ual (

PBA

)In

dian

a D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n's

Web

page

(IW

)?

??

Iow

aT

he A

nnua

l Con

ditio

n of

Edu

catio

nR

epor

t (A

CE

R)

??

?

Kan

sas

Acc

ount

abili

ty R

epor

t 199

3-94

(A

R)

I?

?

Kan

sas

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am: R

esul

tsof

199

5 M

ath.

, Rea

ding

, Sci

ence

&So

cial

Stu

dies

Ass

essm

ent (

KA

P)

??

Ken

tuck

y19

94-9

5 K

Y A

sses

smen

t Res

ults

for

Scho

ols

& D

istr

icts

(K

AR

SD)

??

?

1994

-95

KY

Mid

poin

t Acc

ount

abili

tyR

esul

ts f

or S

choo

ls &

Dis

tric

ts:

Scho

ol &

Dis

t. Sc

ore

Lis

ting

(KM

AR

)

??

?

Lou

isia

na19

93-9

4 L

ouis

iana

Pro

gres

s Pr

ofile

sSt

ate

Rep

ort (

SR)

??

??

1993

-94

Prog

ress

Pro

file

s D

istr

ict

Com

posi

te R

epor

t (D

CR

)I/

E?

I/E

?In

I/E

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

Dat

a R

epor

t (SE

DR

)I

II

IM

aine

Mai

ne's

Edu

catio

n D

ata

& S

tats

(M

DS)

?M

aryl

and

MD

Sch

ool P

erfo

rman

ce R

epor

t,19

95: S

tate

& S

choo

l Sys

tem

s (S

PR)

??

??

??

Mas

sach

uset

tsM

assa

chus

etts

Sch

ool D

istr

ict

Prof

iles

(199

6) (

MSD

P)?

?

46

Page 52: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le C

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

tT

est

resu

lts

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Tes

ting

Stat

eSt

anda

rds

Seco

nd-

ary

Exi

tE

xam

Col

lege

Ent

ranc

eR

esul

t

End

-of-

Cou

rse

Exa

mA

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t

Com

pari

son

to p

f or

yea

rs

Stat

eD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

Mic

higa

nM

ichi

gan

Scho

ol R

epor

t (M

SR)

??

??

?

Spri

ng 1

996

Mic

higa

n E

duca

tiona

lA

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

Sta

tew

ide

Res

ults

(H

igh

Scho

ol P

rofi

cien

cyT

ests

) (S

ME

AP)

?

Min

neso

taN

o re

port

ava

ilabl

e

Mis

siss

ippi

MS

Rep

ort C

ard

1995

(M

RC

)?

??

?

Mis

sour

iPr

ofile

s of

MO

Pub

lic S

choo

ls:

Fina

ncia

l, Pu

pil &

Sta

ff D

ata

for

Fisc

al Y

ear

1993

-94

(PM

PS)

1992

-93

Prof

iles

Rep

ort o

f th

e Pu

blic

Scho

ols

of M

O (

RPS

M)

??

Mon

tana

MT

Sta

tew

ide

Sum

mar

y: N

orm

-ref

er-

ence

d St

uden

t Ass

essm

ent R

epor

ting

for

the

Scho

ol Y

ear

1994

-95

(MSS

)

?

Neb

rask

aR

epor

t of

the

Neb

rask

a Sc

hool

sA

ccou

ntab

ility

Com

mis

sion

(R

NSA

C)

??

Lin

coln

Pub

lic S

choo

ls 1

995

Ann

ual

Rep

ort (

LPS

AR

)?

??

Nev

ada

Ana

lysi

s of

NV

Acc

ount

abili

tySy

stem

(A

NSA

S)?

??

New

Ham

pshi

reE

duca

tiona

l Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t (E

AR

)?

Stat

istic

al R

epor

t 1 (

SRI)

Stat

istic

al R

epor

t 2: E

duca

tor

Rep

ort

(SR

2)St

atis

tical

Rep

ort 3

: Rac

e of

Pup

ilsE

nrol

led

in N

H S

choo

ls (

SR3)

New

Jer

sey

Apr

il 19

95 G

rade

11

Hig

h Sc

hool

Prof

icie

ncy

Tes

t: St

ate

Sum

mar

y (S

S)E

E

Mar

ch 1

995

Gra

de 8

Ear

ly W

arni

ngT

est:

Stat

e Su

mm

ary

(SSE

WT

)E

Spec

ial E

duca

tion:

A S

tatis

tical

Rep

t.fo

r 19

95-9

6 Sc

hool

Yea

r (S

ESR

)N

ew M

exic

oT

he A

ccou

ntab

ility

Rep

ort 1

994-

95:

Indi

cato

rs o

f th

e C

ondi

tion

of P

ublic

Edu

catio

n in

NM

(A

R)

??

??

??

6447

65

Page 53: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

66

Tab

le C

, con

t.

Sta

teR

epor

tT

est

resu

lts

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Tes

ting

Sta

teS

tand

ards

Sec

ond-

ary

Exi

tE

xam

Col

lege

Ent

ranc

eR

esul

t

End

-of-

Cou

rse

Exa

mA

dvan

ced

Pla

cem

ent

Com

pans

on to

prio

r ye

ars

Sta

teD

istr

ict

Sch

ool

New

Yor

kS

tatis

tical

Pro

files

of P

ublic

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

ts (

SP

PS

D)

Sta

tew

ide

Pro

file

of th

e E

duca

tiona

lS

yste

m (

SP

ES

)

? II

? ??

? ?

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t Rpt

: Ref

-er

ence

Gro

up S

umm

arie

s, P

t 1 (

CA

R1)

E

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t Rpt

: Ref

-er

ence

Gro

up S

umm

arie

s, P

t 2 (

CA

R2)

IC

onso

lidat

ed S

peci

al E

duca

tion

Per

form

ance

Rpt

for

1993

-94

(CS

PR

)I

II

IT

he N

Y S

choo

l Rep

ort C

ard:

Ele

men

-ta

ry a

nd S

econ

dary

Pro

toty

pes

(SR

C)

EE

1996

Poc

ketb

ook

of G

oals

& R

esul

tsfo

r In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

itilit

ies

(PB

)I

II

II

IN

orth

Car

olin

aN

orth

Car

olin

a R

epor

t Car

d:A

dmin

istr

ativ

e S

uppl

emen

t (N

CR

C)

??

??

??

?

Sta

te o

f the

Sta

te o

f Edu

catio

nP

erfo

rman

ce in

NC

, 199

4 (S

SE

P)

??

??

??

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sch

ool B

uild

ing

Impr

ovem

ent R

ecor

d (N

CS

BIR

)?

??

??

?

The

Sta

te o

f Sch

ool S

yste

ms

1995

Rep

ort C

ard

(SS

SR

)?

??

??

?

1993

-94

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Sta

te T

estin

gR

esul

ts (

NC

ST

R)

II

II

IN

orth

Car

olin

a E

nd-o

f-G

rade

Tes

ting

Pro

gram

(N

CE

GT

)I

II

Nor

th D

akot

aS

chol

astic

Apt

itude

Tes

t Sco

res

1975

-19

95 (

SA

TS

)?

?

Nor

th D

akot

a A

mer

ican

Col

lege

Tes

tR

esul

ts (

1995

) (A

CT

R)

??

Sch

ool F

inan

ce F

acts

(Ja

n '9

5) (

SF

F)

?N

D S

choo

l Rep

ort o

f Sta

te S

uper

in-

tend

ent o

f Pub

lic In

stru

ctio

n (N

DS

R)

??

?

Ohi

oE

duca

tion

Man

agem

ent I

nfo

Sys

tem

:S

tate

Pro

file

FY

94 v

FY

95 (

EM

IS S

P)

??

??

?

EM

IS D

ist.

Pro

file

FY

95

(EM

IS D

P)

??

??

EM

IS J

oint

Voc

atio

nal S

choo

lD

istr

ict P

rofil

e F

Y 9

5 (E

MIS

JV

)

4867

Page 54: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le C

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

tT

est

resu

lts

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Tes

ting

Stat

eSt

anda

rds

Seco

nd-

ary

Exi

tE

xam

Col

lege

Ent

ranc

eR

esul

t

End

-of-

Cou

rse

Exa

mA

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t

Com

pans

on to

pri

or y

ears

Stat

eD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

Ohi

o, c

ont.

EM

IS E

duca

tiona

l Ser

vice

Cen

ter

Prof

ile F

Y 9

5 (E

MIS

ESC

)O

klah

oma

Okl

ahom

a E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Prog

ram

, Sta

te R

epor

t (ST

R)

9 .?

9 .

Okl

ahom

a E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Prog

ram

, Dis

tric

t Rep

ort (

DR

)9 .

9 .9 .

OK

Edu

catio

nal I

ndic

ator

s Pr

ogra

m,

Dis

tric

t His

tori

cal R

epor

t (D

HR

)9 .

9 .9 .

9 .

Okl

ahom

a E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Pro!

ram

, Sch

ool R

e to

rt (

SR)

9 .9 .

Dis

tric

t Fin

anci

al R

epor

t: R

esul

ts19

94 (

DFR

)19

93-9

4 Se

cond

ary

Scho

olC

urri

culu

m R

evie

w (

SSC

R)

Ore

gon

OR

Rep

ort C

ard

to L

egis

latu

re (

OR

CL

)?

9 .?

Penn

sylv

ania

Stat

us R

pt o

n E

duca

tion

in P

enns

yl-

vani

a: A

Sta

tistic

al S

umm

ary

(SR

EP)

99

9 .

The

Pen

nsyl

vani

a Sy

stem

of

Scho

olA

sses

smen

t:19

94-9

5 Sc

hool

-by-

Scho

ol R

esul

ts (

SSR

)

?

Rho

de I

slan

dR

hode

Isl

and

Publ

ic S

choo

l: 19

94D

istr

ict P

rofi

les

(RID

P)I

II

I

Stud

ent P

erfo

rman

ce in

Rho

de I

slan

d19

94 (

SPR

I)9

9

Sout

h C

arol

ina

SC E

duca

tion

Prof

iles

(SC

EP)

99

?9

Stat

e of

Edu

catio

nal R

efor

m: W

hat i

sth

e Pe

nny

Buy

ing

for

SC?

(SE

R)

99

9?

Stat

e Pe

rfor

man

ce P

rofi

le (

SPP)

?9

9 .?

?19

95 R

esul

ts o

f th

e B

asic

Ski

llsA

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

(R

BSA

P)I

I

1995

Res

ults

of

the

Met

ropo

litan

Ach

ieve

men

t Tes

ts, 7

th E

d. (

RM

AT

)I

Sout

h D

akot

aE

duca

tion

in S

outh

Dak

ota:

ASt

atis

tical

Pro

file

(SP

)?

9 .?

?

Ten

ness

ee21

st C

entu

ry S

choo

ls R

epor

t Car

dC

heat

ham

Cou

nty

(RC

)?

9 .

Che

atha

m C

ount

y R

epor

t Car

dSu

pple

men

t (R

CS)

??

?

49

6869

Page 55: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

7 0

Tab

le C

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

tT

est

resu

lts

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Tes

ting

Stat

eSt

anda

rds

Seco

nd-

ary

Exi

tE

xam

Col

lege

Ent

ranc

eR

esul

t

End

-of-

Cou

rse

Exa

mA

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

t

Com

pari

son

to p

rior

yea

rs

Stat

eD

istr

ict

Scho

ol

Tex

asA

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

rSy

stem

Rev

ised

(A

EIS

): C

ampu

sC

ompa

riso

n G

roup

Lis

ting

(CC

)A

EIS

: Sam

ple

Dis

tric

t and

Sch

ool

Rep

orts

(D

SR)

II

IE

II

AE

IS 1

994-

95 S

tate

Per

form

. Rpt

(SR

)I

II

EI

II

Snap

shot

'94:

1993

-94

Scho

olD

istr

ict P

rofi

les

(SS)

EE

EE

E

Uta

hT

he U

tah

Stat

ewid

e T

estin

g Pr

ogra

m19

95 (

UST

PR)

??

94-9

5 Fi

nger

tip F

acts

: Fac

ts &

Fig

-ur

es o

n U

T P

ublic

Sch

ool S

yste

m (

FF)

??

??

1994

-95

Ann

ual R

epor

t of

Stat

e Su

p-er

inte

nden

t of

Publ

ic I

nstr

uctio

n (A

R)

??

??

Uta

h's

Maj

or S

tude

nt A

sses

smen

tPr

ogra

ms

(UM

SAP)

??

Ver

mon

tA

Sco

reca

rd f

or S

choo

l Fin

ance

: Fif

thA

nnua

l Rep

ort (

SSF)

Sum

mar

y of

the

Ann

ual S

tatis

tical

Rep

ort o

f th

e Sc

hool

(SA

SRS)

VT

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am: A

sses

smen

tR

esul

ts in

Wri

ting

& M

ath.

(V

APR

)?

??

The

Con

ditio

n of

Edu

catio

n in

VT

:19

94 A

nnua

l Rep

ort (

CE

V)

Vir

gini

a19

95 O

utco

me

Acc

ount

abili

ty P

roje

ct:

Sum

mar

y of

Sta

tew

ide

Rep

orts

(O

AP)

I?

I

Rep

ort o

f th

e V

irgi

nia

Lite

racy

Tes

ting

Prog

ram

(R

VL

T)

??

Was

hing

ton

WA

Sta

te A

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

:D

istr

ict L

evel

Sum

mar

ies

(WSA

PS)

?I

Prel

imin

ary

Res

ults

for

Fal

l 199

5St

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am -

Gra

des

4,8,

& 1

1 (P

RF)

WV

Rep

ort C

ards

: Sta

te, C

ount

y, &

Scho

ol D

ata

(WV

RC

)

? EE

E

?

Wes

t Vir

gini

a

Wis

cons

inSc

hool

Per

form

ance

Rpt

Car

d (W

SPR

)?

??

Wyo

min

gN

o re

port

ava

ilabl

e.

50

Page 56: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Glo

ssar

y of

Ind

icat

ors

for

Tab

le C

Indi

cato

r R

epor

ted

Def

initi

on

Tes

t Res

ults

Ach

ieve

men

t tes

ting

resu

lts

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Tes

ting

The

num

ber

or p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s ex

empt

ed f

rom

ach

ieve

men

tte

stin

g

Stat

e St

anda

rds

The

num

ber

or p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s m

eetin

g pr

escr

ibed

sta

test

anda

rds

in th

e ar

ea o

f te

stin

g or

wri

tten

desc

ript

ion

of th

e st

ate

stan

dard

is p

rovi

ded

in th

e ac

coun

tabi

lity

docu

men

t

Seco

ndar

y E

xit E

xam

Res

ults

of

stud

ents

taki

ng a

sec

onda

ry h

igh

scho

ol e

xit e

xam

(i.e

. Hig

hsc

hool

gra

duat

ion

exam

)

Col

lege

Ent

ranc

e R

esul

tA

mer

ican

col

lege

test

(A

CT

) or

sta

ndar

dize

d as

sess

men

t tes

t (SA

T)

stud

ent r

esul

ts

End

-of-

Cou

rse

Exa

mSt

uden

t res

ults

of

test

s gi

ven

afte

r th

e co

mpl

etio

n of

a c

ours

e (i

.e. 3

rdgr

ade

read

ing

test

)A

dvan

ced

Plac

emen

tSt

uden

t res

ults

of

adva

nced

pla

cem

ent e

xam

inat

ions

or

the

num

ber

ofst

uden

ts e

nrol

led

in a

p cl

asse

sC

ompa

riso

n to

pri

or y

ears

by S

tate

, Dis

tric

t, &

/or

Scho

ol

Com

pari

sons

are

mad

e to

pre

viou

s ye

ars'

dat

a by

sta

te, d

istr

ict,

and/

orlo

cal s

choo

l lev

els

Leg

end

of S

ymbo

ls f

or T

able

C

Sym

bol/T

erm

Def

initi

on

?It

is u

ncle

ar o

r no

t spe

cifi

ed w

heth

er s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

ein

clud

ed in

the

data

.

ESt

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

excl

uded

fro

m th

e da

ta.

ISt

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

incl

uded

in th

e da

ta.

l/ESo

me

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

e in

clud

ed in

the

data

, and

oth

erst

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

not i

nclu

ded

in th

e da

ta.

Bla

nk s

pace

sT

he d

ocum

ent d

oes

not r

epor

t dat

a on

this

indi

cato

r.

7251

Page 57: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

7 4

Tab

le D

. Oth

er E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Stat

eR

epor

t

Inpu

tsPr

oces

ses

Out

com

esA

ccre

d. S

tatu

s by

Stud

ent-

teac

her

Rat

ioC

ost

Oth

erE

nrol

l-m

ent

Atte

n-da

nce

Oth

erD

ropo

utra

tes

Gra

dua-

tion

Rat

esO

ther

Dis

tric

tSc

hool

Ala

bam

aA

nnua

l Rep

ort:

1994

Sta

tistic

al a

ndFi

nanc

ial D

ata

for

1993

(A

R)

??

??

??

Ann

ual S

tatu

s R

epor

t on

the

Con

di-t

ion

ofE

duca

tion

1993

-94

(ASR

)I

?

Ala

ska

Sum

mar

y of

Ala

ska'

s Pu

blic

Sch

ool

Dis

tric

ts R

epor

t Car

ds to

the

Publ

ic:

Scho

ol Y

ear

1994

-95

(RC

P)

??

?I

??

?

Ari

zona

Ari

zona

Pup

il A

chie

vem

ent T

estin

g 19

95-

96 S

choo

l Yea

r (A

PAT

)A

rizo

na S

choo

l Rep

ort C

ard

95-9

6 (S

RC

)?

??

?

Ark

ansa

sA

rkan

sas

Ann

ual S

choo

l Dis

tric

t Rep

ort

Car

d (A

ASD

R)

??

??

??

??

1995

-96

Ann

ual R

epor

t of

the

Adv

isor

yC

ounc

il fo

r th

e E

duca

tion

of C

hild

ren

with

Dis

abili

ties

(AR

AC

)

II

II

Cal

ifor

nia

Cur

rent

ly u

nder

rev

isio

n

Col

orad

oH

igh

Exp

ecta

tions

, Hig

h A

chie

vem

ents

:St

ate

Rep

ort C

ard

1995

(SR

C)

II

??

??

Con

nect

icut

A P

rofi

le o

f ou

r Sc

hool

s: C

ondi

tion

ofE

duca

tion

in C

T 1

993-

94 (

POS)

??

II

??

??

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

in C

T (

SEC

)I

II

II

II

Del

awar

eD

elaw

are

Inte

rim

Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t 199

3-95

(IA

)D

istr

ict o

fC

olum

bia

A F

ive

Yea

r St

atis

tical

Gla

nce

at D

.C.

Publ

ic S

choo

ls: S

choo

l Yea

rs 1

990-

91th

roug

h 19

94-9

5 (F

YSG

)

?I

I?

??

?

Flor

ida

1994

Sch

ool P

ublic

Acc

ount

abili

ty R

epor

t(S

PAR

)?

??

?

1994

-95

Scho

ol A

dvis

ory

Cou

ncil

Rep

ort

(SA

CR

)?

II

??

?

Geo

rgia

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

Cur

ricu

lum

-bas

edA

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

Res

ults

(C

BA

)O

ffic

ial S

tate

Sum

mar

y: G

A H

igh

Scho

olG

radu

atio

n T

ests

(H

SGT

)O

ffic

ial S

tate

Sum

mar

y: G

A G

rade

s 5

& 8

Wri

ting

Ass

essm

ents

(W

A)

Off

icia

l Sta

te S

umm

ary:

GA

Nor

m-

refe

renc

ed T

est S

core

s (N

RT

)

52

Page 58: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le D

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Inpu

tsPr

oces

ses

Out

com

esA

ccre

d. S

tatu

s by

Stud

ent-

teac

her

Rat

ioC

ost

Oth

erE

nrol

l-m

ent

Atte

n-da

nce

Oth

erD

ropo

utra

tes

Gra

dua-

tion

Rat

esO

ther

Dis

tric

tSc

hool

Geo

rgia

, con

t.St

atew

ide

Med

ians

Sch

ool S

yste

m P

ilot

Perf

orm

ance

Rep

ort (

SSPP

R)

?I

?

Haw

aii

The

Sup

erin

tend

ent's

Fif

th A

nnua

l Rep

ort

on S

choo

l Per

form

ance

and

Im

prov

emen

t in

Haw

aii (

AR

)

??

??

??

Scho

ol S

tatu

s an

d Im

prov

emen

t Rep

ort:

Scho

ol Y

ear

1994

-95

(SSI

R)

I?

??

Idah

o19

93-9

4 ID

Sch

ool P

rofi

les

(SP)

I?

I?

?I

1994

-95

Ann

ual S

tatis

tical

Rpt

(A

SR)

IIl

linoi

sSc

hool

Rep

ort C

ard

1994

-95

(SR

C)

??

??

??

??

Sum

mar

y of

Stu

dent

Ach

ieve

men

t in

Illin

ois

(SSA

1)In

dian

aPe

rfor

man

ce-b

ased

Acc

redi

tatio

n M

anua

l(P

BA

)In

dian

a D

epar

tmen

t of

Edu

catio

n's

Web

page

(1W

)?

I?

?

Iow

aT

he A

nnua

l Con

ditio

n of

Edu

catio

n R

epor

t(A

CE

R)

??

??

??

??

Kan

sas

Acc

ount

abili

ty R

epor

t 199

3-94

(A

R)

?I

I?

.

Kan

sas

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am: R

esul

ts o

f19

95 M

ath.

, Rea

ding

, Sci

ence

& S

ocia

lSt

udie

s A

sses

smen

t (K

AP)

Ken

tuck

y19

94-9

5 K

Y A

sses

smen

t Res

ults

for

Scho

ols

& D

istr

icts

(K

AR

SD)

??

??

?

1994

-95

KY

Mid

poin

t Acc

ount

abili

tyR

esul

ts f

or S

choo

ls &

Dis

tric

ts: S

choo

l &D

ist.

Scor

e L

istin

g (K

MA

R)

??

??

Lou

isia

na19

93-9

4 L

ouis

iana

Pro

gres

s Pr

ofile

s St

ate

Rep

ort (

SR)

??

?E

??

1993

-94

Prog

ress

Pro

file

s D

istr

ict

Com

posi

te R

epor

t (D

CR

)?

E?

??

Spec

ial E

duca

tion

Dat

a R

epor

t (SE

DR

)I

II

II

IM

aine

Mai

ne's

Edu

catio

n D

ata

& S

tats

(M

DS)

??

II

??

?

Mar

ylan

dM

D S

choo

l Per

form

ance

Rep

ort,

1995

:St

ate

& S

choo

l Sys

tem

s (S

PR)

??

??

??

?

Mas

sach

uset

ts,

Mas

sach

uset

ts S

choo

l Dis

tric

t Pro

file

s(1

996)

(M

SDP)

?I

?I

?

53

'76

77

Page 59: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

7 3

Tab

le D

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Inpu

tsPr

oces

ses

Out

com

esA

ccre

d. S

tatu

s by

Stud

ent-

teac

her

Rat

ioC

ost

Oth

erE

nrol

l-m

ent

Atte

n-da

nce

Oth

erD

ropo

utra

tes

Gra

dua-

tion

Rat

esO

ther

Dis

tric

tSc

hool

Mic

higa

nM

ichi

gan

Scho

ol R

epor

t (M

SR)

??

??

??

??

Spri

ng 1

996

Mic

higa

n E

duca

tiona

lA

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

Sta

tew

ide

Res

ults

(Hig

h Sc

hool

Pro

fici

ency

Tes

ts)

(SM

EA

P)M

inne

sota

No

repo

rt a

vaila

ble

Mis

siss

ippi

MS

Rep

ort C

ard

1995

(M

RC

)?

II

??

I?

Mis

sour

iPr

ofile

s of

MO

Pub

lic S

choo

ls: F

inan

cial

,Pu

pil &

Sta

ff D

ata

for

Fisc

al Y

ear

1993

-94

(PM

PS)

??

??

??

??

?

1992

-93

Prof

iles

Rep

ort o

f th

e Pu

blic

Scho

ols

of M

O (

RPS

M)

I?

??

?E

??

Mon

tana

MT

Sta

tew

ide

Sum

mar

y: N

orm

-ref

eren

ced

Stud

ent A

sses

smen

t Rep

ortin

g fo

r th

eSc

hool

Yea

r 19

94-9

5 (M

SS)

Neb

rask

aR

epor

t of

the

Neb

rask

a Sc

hool

sA

ccou

ntab

ility

Com

mis

sion

(R

NSA

C)

Lin

coln

Pub

lic S

choo

ls 1

995

Ann

ual

Rep

ort (

LPS

AR

)E

?I

?

Nev

ada

Ana

lysi

s of

NV

Acc

ount

abili

ty S

yste

m(A

NSA

S)?

?1

??

New

Ham

pshi

reE

duca

tiona

l Ass

essm

ent R

epor

t (E

AR

)

Stat

istic

al R

epor

t 1 (

SR1)

??

ISt

atis

tical

Rep

ort 2

: Edu

cato

r R

epor

t (SR

2)?

Stat

istic

al R

epor

t 3: R

ace

of P

upils

Enr

olle

d in

NH

Sch

ools

(SR

3)?

?

New

Jer

sey

Apr

il 19

95 G

rade

11

Hig

h Sc

hool

Prof

icie

ncy

Tes

t: St

ate

Sum

mar

y (S

S)M

arch

199

5 G

rade

8 E

arly

War

ning

Tes

t:St

ate

Sum

mar

y (S

SEW

T)

Spec

ial E

duca

tion:

A S

tatis

tical

Rep

t. fo

r19

95-9

6 Sc

hool

Yea

r (S

ESR

)I

II

II

I

New

Mex

ico

The

Acc

ount

abili

ty R

epor

t 199

4-95

:In

dica

tors

of

the

Con

ditio

n of

Pub

licE

duca

tion

in N

M (

AR

)

??

??

??

?

54

Page 60: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le D

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Inpu

tsPr

oces

ses

Out

com

esA

ccre

d. S

tatu

s by

Stud

ent-

teac

her

Rat

ioC

ost

Oth

erE

nrol

l-m

ent

Atte

n-da

nce

Oth

erD

ropo

utra

tes

Gra

dua-

tion

Rat

esO

ther

Dis

tric

tSc

hool

New

Yor

kSt

atis

tical

Pro

file

s of

Pub

lic S

choo

lD

istr

icts

(SP

PSD

)?

??

I?

??

?

Stat

ewid

e Pr

ofile

of

the

Edu

catio

nal S

yste

m(S

PES)

??

??

??

?I

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t Rpt

: Ref

eren

ceG

roup

Sum

mar

ies,

Par

t 1 (

CA

R1)

Com

preh

ensi

ve A

sses

smen

t Rpt

: Ref

eren

ceG

roup

Sum

mar

ies,

Par

t 2 (

CA

R2)

?I

??

?

Con

solid

ated

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

nPe

rfor

man

ce R

epor

t for

199

3-94

(C

SPR

)I

II

II

II

The

NY

Sch

ool R

epor

t Car

d: E

lem

enta

ryan

d Se

cond

ary

Prot

otyp

es (

SRC

)?

??

??

?

1996

Poc

ketb

ook

of G

oals

& R

esul

ts f

orIn

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s (P

B)

II

II

II

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Rep

ort C

ard:

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Supp

lem

ent (

NC

RC

)?

??

?

Stat

e of

the

Stat

e of

Edu

catio

n Pe

rfor

man

cein

NC

, 199

4 (S

SEP)

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Scho

ol B

uild

ing

Impr

ovem

ent R

ecor

d (N

CSB

IR)

??

?

The

Sta

te o

f Sc

hool

Sys

tem

s 19

95 R

epor

tC

ard

(SSS

R)

??

??

?

1993

-94

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Stat

e T

estin

gR

esul

ts (

NC

STR

)?

?

Nor

th C

arol

ina

End

-of-

Gra

de T

estin

gPr

ogra

m (

NC

EG

T)

?

Nor

th D

akot

aSc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

Tes

t Sco

res

1975

-199

5(S

AT

S)N

orth

Dak

ota

Am

eric

an C

olle

ge T

est

Res

ults

(19

95)

(AC

TR

)Sc

hool

Fin

ance

Fac

ts (

Jan

'95)

(SF

F)?

II

??

ND

Sch

ool R

epor

t of

Stat

e Su

peri

nten

dent

of P

ublic

Ins

truc

tion

(ND

SR)

II

II

??

Ohi

oE

duca

tion

Man

agem

ent I

nfo

Syst

em: S

tate

Prof

ile F

Y94

v F

Y95

(E

MIS

SP)

??

?I

??

EM

IS D

istr

ict P

rofi

le F

Y 9

5 (E

MIS

DP)

??

??

??

EM

IS J

oint

Voc

atio

nal S

choo

l Dis

tric

tPr

ofile

FY

95

(EM

IS J

V)

??

?I

?

SO55

81

Page 61: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

8 2

Tab

le D

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Inpu

tsPr

oces

ses

Out

com

esA

ccre

d. S

tatu

s by

Stud

ent-

teac

her

Rat

ioC

ost

Oth

erE

nrol

l-m

ent

Atte

n-da

nce

Oth

erD

ropo

utra

tes

Gra

dua-

tion

Rat

esO

ther

Dis

tric

tSc

hool

Ohi

o, c

ont.

EM

IS E

duca

tiona

l Ser

vice

Cen

ter

Prof

ile F

Y95

(E

MIS

ESC

)

II

Okl

ahom

aO

klah

oma

Edu

catio

nal I

ndic

ator

s Pr

ogra

m,

Stat

e R

epor

t (ST

R)

??

??

??

Okl

ahom

a E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Prog

ram

,D

istr

ict R

epor

t (D

R)

??

?I

??

OK

Edu

catio

nal I

ndic

ator

s Pr

ogra

m, D

istr

ict

His

tori

cal R

epor

t (D

HR

)?

I?

?

Okl

ahom

a E

duca

tiona

l Ind

icat

ors

Prog

ram

,Sc

hool

Rep

ort (

SR)

??

??

Dis

tric

t Fin

anci

al R

epor

t: R

esul

ts 1

994

(DFR

)

??

1993

-94

Seco

ndar

y Sc

hool

Cur

ricu

lum

Rev

iew

(SS

CR

)

I

Ore

gon

OR

Rep

ort C

ard

to L

egis

latu

re (

OR

CL

)1/

?1/

?I

1/?

I/?

Penn

sylv

ania

Stat

us R

pt o

n E

duca

tion

in P

enns

ylva

nia:

ASt

atis

tical

Sum

mar

y (S

RE

P)?

??

??

??

The

Pen

nsyl

vani

a Sy

stem

of

Scho

olA

sses

smen

t:19

94-9

5 Sc

hool

-by-

Scho

olR

esul

ts (

SSR

)

?

Rho

de I

slan

dR

hode

Isl

and

Publ

ic S

choo

l: 19

94 D

istr

ict

Prof

iles

(RID

P)?

?I

I,

??

??

?

Stud

ent P

erfo

rman

ce in

Rho

de I

slan

d 19

94(S

PRI)

??

Sout

h C

arol

ina

SC E

duca

tion

Prof

iles

(SC

EP)

??

?I

??

?

Stat

e of

Edu

catio

nal R

efor

m: W

hat i

s th

ePe

nny

Buy

ing

for

SC?

(SE

R)

??

??

??

Stat

e Pe

rfor

man

ce P

rofi

le (

SPP)

??

??

??

??

1995

Res

ults

of

the

Bas

ic S

kills

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am (

RB

SAP)

1995

Res

ults

of

the

Met

ropo

litan

Ach

ieve

men

t Tes

ts, 7

th E

d. (

RM

AT

)So

uth

Dak

ota

Edu

catio

n in

Sou

th D

akot

a: A

Sta

tistic

alPr

ofile

(SP

)?

??

I?

?I

Ten

ness

ee21

st C

entu

ry S

choo

ls R

epor

t Car

dC

heat

ham

Cou

nty

(RC

)?

??

?

Che

atha

m C

ount

y R

epor

t Car

d Su

pple

men

t(R

CS)

?

56

Page 62: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Tab

le D

, con

t.

Stat

eR

epor

t

Inpu

tsPr

oces

ses

Out

com

esA

ccre

d. S

tatu

s by

Stud

ent-

teac

her

Rat

ioC

ost

Oth

erE

nrol

l-m

ent

Atte

n-da

nce

Oth

erD

ropo

utra

tes

Gra

dua-

ti on

Rat

esO

ther

Dis

tric

tSc

hool

Tex

asA

cade

mic

Exc

elle

nce

Indi

cato

r Sy

stem

Rev

ised

(A

EIS

): C

ampu

s C

ompa

riso

nG

roup

Lis

ting

(CC

)

?

AE

IS: S

ampl

e D

istr

ict a

nd S

choo

l Rep

orts

(DSR

)I

II

II

II

XX

AE

IS 1

994-

95 S

tate

Per

form

. Rpt

(SR

)I

ISn

apsh

ot '9

4:19

93-9

4 Sc

hool

Dis

tric

tPr

ofile

s (S

S)I

II

II

II

X

Uta

hT

he U

tah

Stat

ewid

e T

estin

g Pr

ogra

m 1

995

(UST

PR)

?

94-9

5 Fi

nger

tip F

acts

: Fac

ts &

Fig

ures

on

UT

Pub

lic S

choo

l Sys

tem

(FF

)?

??

??

1994

-95

Ann

ual R

epor

t of

Stat

e Su

peri

n-te

nden

t of

Publ

ic I

nstr

uctio

n (A

R)

??

I

Uta

h's

Maj

or S

tude

nt A

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

s(U

MSA

P)V

erm

ont

A S

core

card

for

Sch

ool F

inan

ce: F

ifth

Ann

ual R

esor

t (SS

F)?

??

Sum

mar

y of

the

Ann

ual S

tatis

tical

Rep

ort o

fth

e Sc

hool

(SA

SRS)

?

VT

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am: A

sses

smen

tR

esul

ts in

Wri

ting

& M

ath.

(V

APR

),

The

Con

ditio

n of

Edu

catio

n in

VT

: 199

4A

nnua

l Rep

ort (

CE

V)

??

I?

??

Vir

gini

a19

95 O

utco

me

Acc

ount

abili

ty P

roje

ct:

Sum

mar

y of

Sta

tew

ide

Rep

orts

(O

AP)

II

II

I

Rep

ort o

f th

e V

irgi

nia

Lite

racy

Tes

ting

Prog

ram

(R

VL

T)

Was

hing

ton

WA

Sta

te A

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

: Dis

tric

tL

evel

Sum

mar

ies

(WSA

PS)

Prel

imin

ary

Res

ults

for

Fal

l 199

5 St

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am -

Gra

des

4, 8

, & 1

1(P

RF)

Wes

t Vir

gini

aW

V R

epor

t Car

ds: S

tate

, Cou

nty,

& S

choo

lD

ata.

(WV

RC

)?

??

??

?

Wis

cons

inSc

hool

Per

form

ance

Rpt

.Car

d (W

SPR

)?

??

??

??

?W

yom

ing

No

repo

rt a

vaila

ble.

8 4

5785

Page 63: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

Glo

ssar

y of

Ind

icat

ors

for

Tab

le D

Indi

cato

r R

epor

ted

Def

initi

on

Tes

t res

ults

Doc

umen

t rep

orts

ach

ieve

men

t tes

ting

resu

lts.

Enr

ollm

ent

Num

ber

or p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s en

rolle

d in

the

scho

ol

Atte

ndan

ceN

umbe

r or

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

figu

red

in th

e da

ily a

ttend

ance

rat

ios

Dro

p-O

ut R

ates

Num

ber

or p

erce

ntag

e of

stu

dent

s w

ho d

rop

out o

f sc

hool

Gra

duat

ion

Rat

esN

umbe

r or

per

cent

age

of s

tude

nts

who

gra

duat

e fr

om h

igh

scho

ol

Stud

ent-

Tea

cher

Rat

ioN

umbe

r of

stu

dent

s to

eve

ry te

ache

r (i

n so

me

case

s, s

tate

s us

e a

stud

ent-

staf

f ra

tio)

Cos

tSc

hool

fin

anci

al d

ata

Acc

redi

tatio

n St

atus

by

Dis

tric

t or

Scho

olA

ccre

dita

tion

stat

us is

rep

orte

d in

the

repo

rt b

y ei

ther

sch

ool d

istr

ict o

rlo

cal s

choo

l lev

els.

Leg

end

of S

ymbo

ls f

or T

able

D

Sym

bol/T

erm

Def

initi

on

?It

is u

ncle

ar o

r no

t spe

cifi

ed w

heth

er s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

ein

clud

ed in

the

data

.

ESt

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

excl

uded

fro

m th

e da

ta.

ISt

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

incl

uded

in th

e da

ta.

T/E

Som

e st

uden

ts w

ith d

isab

ilitie

s w

ere

incl

uded

in th

e da

ta, a

nd o

ther

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

wer

e no

t inc

lude

d in

the

data

.

Bla

nk s

pace

sT

he d

ocum

ent d

oes

not r

epor

t dat

a on

this

indi

cato

r.

8687

58

Page 64: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

The College of Education& Human Development

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

83

Page 65: State Accountability Reports: What Are States Saying about

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

IC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").