ERIC ED450502: Performance Goals and Indicators. Quick Turn Around (QTA).

7 Pages·0.14 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
EC 308 258
ED 450 502
AUTHOR
Ahearn, Eileen M.
Performance Goals and Indicators. Quick Turn Around Project
TITLE
Forum. QTA--A Brief Analysis of a Critical Issue in Special
Education.
National Association of State Directors of Special
INSTITUTION
Education, Alexandria, VA.
Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.
SPONS AGENCY
PUB DATE
2001-01-00
NOTE
6p.
CONTRACT
H159K70002
National Association of State Directors of Special
AVAILABLE FROM
Education, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 320, Alexandria, VA
22314; Tel: [phone] (Voice); Fax: [phone]; Web
site: http://www.nasdse.org
Reports
Evaluative (142)
PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
Compliance (Legal); *Disabilities; Educational Assessment;
DESCRIPTORS
*Educational Legislation; Elementary Secondary Education;
*Federal Legislation; National Surveys; *State Standards;
*Student Educational Objectives
*Individuals with Disabilities Educ Act Amend 1997;
IDENTIFIERS
*Performance Indicators
ABSTRACT
This brief paper summarizes a review of biennial performance
reports filed by all 50 states concerning student performance goals and
indicators required under the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. It notes that the state reports varied
extensively in level of detail, clarity of content, and type of supporting
materials included. States also differed substantially in the number, type,
and level of abstraction of state goals for special education. Sixteen states
use the same goals for students receiving special education as for other
children. The most common areas addressed in goals were academic achievement,
transition/postsecondary placements, teacher preparation/technical
assistance, graduation rates, dropout rates, and communication/coordination
with families/communities. The number of performance indicators that states
reported using varied from 5 to 71. The content of performance indicators
clustered around eight topics including: reaching graduation standards,
inclusion in general education curriculum and/or assessments, improved
dropout rates, and higher academic achievement. Suggestions are also offered
to enhance the readability and usefulness of such reports including
development of consensus definitions of "goals" and "performance indicators"
and use of a consistent format for reporting of basic information.
(DB)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
Performance Goals and Indicators. Quick Turn
Around Project Forum. QTA---A Brief Analysis of
a Critical Issue in Special Education.
Eileen M. Ahearn
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent official
OERI position or policy.
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
QTA A brief analysis of a critical issue in special education
Performance Goals and Indicators
January 2001
By Eileen M. Ahearn, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
Based on its assessment of that
(d)
progress, will revise its State
improvement plan under subpart 1 of
The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with
Part D of the Act as may be needed to
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require
improve its performance, if the State
and
have
goals
states
performance
to
receives assistance under that subpart.
indicators
described
following
the
as
in
of
section
regulations
the
implementing
The U. S. Department of Education Office of
IDEA:
Special Education Programs (OSEP) notified
§300.137
and
Performance
goals
states that their report on goals and indicators
indicators.
would be included in a broader "Biennial
Performance Report for Part B" due for the
The State must have on file with the
first time on December 31, 1999. The Biennial
Secretary information to demonstrate that
the State
Report combines the existing requirement of a
Performance Report on the use of federal
(a)
Has established goals for the
funds with the new Part B requirement that
performance of children with
states report on the progress of students with
disabilities in the State that
disabilities in meeting performance goals and
Will promote the purposes of this part,
(1)
indicators set by the state. The new report will
as stated in §300.1; and
now be submitted every other year.
Are consistent, to the maximum extent
(2)
appropriate, with other goals and
In OSEP memo #00-05R in which the full
standards for all children established by
content of the Biennial Report was described,
the State;
states were asked to provide the following
Has established pelformance
information related to goals and indicators:
(b)
indicators that the State will use to
assess progress toward achieving
1(a) State the goals the State has established
those goals that, at a minimum,
for the performance of children with
address the performance of children
disabilities in the State and to what extent
with disabilities on assessments,
those goals are consistent with other goals
drop-out rates, and graduation rates;
and standards for children established by the
State.
Every two years, will report to the
(c)
Secretary and the public on the
(b) State the performance indicators that the
progress of the State, and of children
State will use to assess progress towards
with disabilities in the State, toward
achieving those goals that, at a minimum,
meeting the goals established under
address the performance of children with
paragraph (a) of this section; and
disabilities on assessments, drop-out rates,
and graduation rates.
This document is available in alternative formats. For details, please contact Project FORUM staff at 703-519-3800 (voice) or 7008 (TDD)
3
alk
This QTA, completed as a task under Project
States differed significantly in the level of
FORUM's
Agreement
with
Cooperative
specificity of their goals and number of goals
OSEP, is a brief analysis of the goals and
and indicators. In some cases, goals were very
detailed and were
indicators component of the first set of state
further with
specified
biennial reports that cover the school years
objectives and then linked to performance
1997-98 and 1998-99.
very
indicators.
were
Others
general,
especially in those states that used the state
METHODOLOGY
goals for all students as the goals for special
education. One state had three levels of goals,
OSEP provided to Project FORUM copies of
but performance indicators were not specified
the Biennial Performance Reports filed by all
as such.
50 states. Also provided were reports from six
non-state jurisdictions that participate in the
It was not unusual to find that what was listed
IDEA program.1 The documents ranged in
as a goal in one state was a performance
length from 4 to 558 pages, and all were at
indicator in another. For example, one state
least
basically
organized
had a goal of "making all schools safe," with
around
the
requirements contained in the OSEP memo.
performance indicators related to suspension
The reports were reviewed and the sections
while
another
expulsion,
and
in
state,
goals and indicators were
containing the
rate of suspension and
"reduction of the
tabulated
summarized
and
facilitate
to
expulsion for students with disabilities" was a
analysis. After general comments about the
goal, with specific percentages listed as the
reports, this document contains a discussion of
performance indicators. One state noted that
the areas included in the goals and indicators
its goals are voluntary and individual districts
section of the reports, and concludes with
are free to adopt the state goals or to develop
observations about future biennial reports.
more rigorous ones of their own.
OVERVIEW OF THE REPORTS
Most states included additional data in support
of one or more of the items in the report. In
The state reports varied extensively not only
addition to the required information on their
in length as mentioned above, but also in level
activities and expenditures supported by IDEA
clarity of content, and type of
of detail,
Part B funds during the grant period, the
supporting materials included. Although most
materials appended by states included data on
began with a report organized around the
one or more of the following: state or district
the OSEP memo of
points
specific
in
assessment, child count or identification rates,
instructions, 10 were incomplete and about the
due process statistics covering complaints and
same number were difficult to analyze because
due process hearings, suspensions/expulsions,
of the way the material was presented. In
graduation
dropout
and
rates,
needs
some cases, state responses were compiled in
assessments, and curriculum frameworks. The
whole or in part from existing materials on
most
materials
common
were
student
state or departmental goals and /or indicators
achievement results on the state assessment
that were developed for other purposes and
program, often with data on inclusion rates for
reworked or revised to meet the needs of the
disabilities
students
with
other
and
biennial report.
information
about
participation.
some
In
cases, there was little analysis or narrative
interpretation of the
test
results,
although
I The non-state entities included in this analysis are
many states did append a copy of their public
American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Guam,
of
reports
provided
various
that
levels
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
descriptive
some
detail,
with results
Puerto Rico, and Palau.
Performance Goals and Indicators
Page 2
Project FORUM at NASDSE
,4
January 2001
disaggregated by grade and/or other factors
achievement was the only area addressed in
such as gender and race/ethnicity.
their goals.
STATE GOALS
The most common areas addressed in goals
are listed below with the number of states in
its own
has designed
every
parentheses:
Since
state
accountability system, no specification for the
type or content of the goals and performance
> Academic achievement (38);
> Transition/postsecondary placements (24);
indicators for special education was prescribed
in the OSEP memo. As might be expected,
> Teacher preparation/technical
assistance
differences among
there
were
substantial
(18);
in the number, type, and level of
> Graduation rates (17);
states
> Dropout rates (13); and,
abstraction of state goals for special education.
> Communication
Two states reported that they are still working
coordination
or with
on developing their goals and performance
families/communities (12).
indicators, and a few others indicated that they
will continue to refine theirs over time.
Other topic areas addressed in state goals by at
A total of 16 states are using the same goals
least one but fewer than 10 states are: safety
for students receiving special education as
suspension and expulsion,
and discipline,
of
they are for other children. Within that group,
adequacy
resources,
use
early
and
of
also
states
two
use same
childhood, interagency coordination, inclusion
the
set
performance indicators, eight states isolated a
access
general education
and
the
to
of the
or developed
subset
curriculum,
state goals
compliance monitoring,
and
performance indicators specific to students
mediation, coordination with institutions of
with disabilities, and six of those states did not
higher
interpersonal
education,
and
skill
provide any performance indicators. Some
development.
states developed their goals as part of other
goal-setting
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
requirements
or built
on
to
goalssome
previously
established
in
response to compliance monitoring findings,
The variability of state performance indicators
is similar to that described for goals. States
relation
and
others
other
in
federal
to
programs such as the
reported that they have adopted performance
State Improvement
indicators that range in number from 5 to 71.
Grant Program. One state described its goal-
setting as clearly tied
its new quality
Again "goals" in one state are "performance
to
indicators" in another state.
assurance monitoring system.
of
content
performance
The
indicators
Analysis of the content of the goals revealed a
clustered around eight major topics. The
number of common topic areas and a few
additional topics included by one or only a
topics and the number of states that addressed
few states. The area most commonly included
them are as follows:
was academic achievementthe majority of
> Reaching graduation standards (36);
states have one or more goals on this topic.
> Inclusion
of
general education
in
The
content
these
goals
specified
curriculum and/or assessments (30);
achievement of high standards, levels of test
> Improved dropout rates (28);
results,
inclusion/participation
rates,
and
or multiple
Higher academic achievement (25);
directed toward
single
goals
Improved transition and post-school
curriculum.
few
states,
a
In
academic
outcomes (23);
Performance Goals and Indicators
Page 3
Project FORUM at NASDSE
January 2001
5
>
Lower
suspension/expulsion
rates
The 1997-98/1998-99 reports that were more
(22);
easily understood were organized as follows:
>
Better preservice/inservice for teachers
A summary of IDEA implementation in
and other personnel (16); and,
>
Expanded
communication/
the state incorporating the required data on
coordination with families (14).
Part B activities and expenditures;
of
Presentation
each
goal
with
its
Other
areas
topic
addressed
performance
the
indicators
in
including
the
performance indicators by fewer than 10 states
baseline
measurement
and
current
are: disproportionality of race/ ethnicity in
progress information; and
special education, attendance rates, decrease
Concise
student with
data
narrative
in the number of identified students with
explanation supporting the baseline and
disabilities,
early childhood/pre-school
current status.
programs, monitoring, due process, mediation,
extra-curricular activities, incarcerated youth,
The
performed
analysis
for
report
this
indicated a need for consideration of the
student-teacher ratios, and student-assistance
teams. One state included a number of items
following suggestions that could enhance the
related to health issues ranging from prenatal
readability and usefulness of future biennial
care to teenage concerns.
reports:
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
of
Develop consensus
definitions
on
"goals" and "performance indicators" as
States are at various levels of development in
they pertain to special education programs
the area of performance goals and indicators
within the constraints of their individual
special
for
education.
Many
states
are
state requirements on this matter.
simultaneously involved in projects to develop
Establish
consistent
for
format
the
a
of
or significantly revise their state data system
reporting
basic
information,
and
expanded need
accommodate
agreement on the type and amount of
to
the
for
accountability data at state and federal levels.
supporting data to be included in biennial
is reasonable to expect that goals and
It
reports to improve the usefulness of those
indicators will change in many states by the
reports in meeting federal requirements as
time the next biennial report is due.
communication and
well
facilitate
as
sharing among states.
This report was supported in whole or in part by the U.S. Department of Education
(Cooperative Agreement No. H I 59K70002). However, the opinions expressed herein do
not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official
endorsement by the Department should be inferred.
Note: There are no copyright restrictions on this document: however, please credit the
U.S. Office of Special
source and support of federal funds when copying all or part of this material.
Education Programs
Performance Goals and Indicators
Page 4
Project FORUM at NASDSE
January 2001
6
ERIC
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release
(Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all
organization and, therefore,
or classes of documents from its source
does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
[E(This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission to
reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may
be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form
(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
EFF-089 (9/97)