state accountability reports: what are states saying about
TRANSCRIPT
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.
********************************************************************************
#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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The College of Education& Human Development
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
83
(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").