A Study of State and Local Implementation and Impact

1
Improving Results for Students with
Disabilities Key Results from the National
Assessment of the 1997 Amendments of IDEA
Fran OReilly, Abt AssociatesMary-Beth Fafard,
Brown UniversityMary Wagner, SRI International
Hosted by Office of Special Education
Programs, U.S. Department of EducationSeptember
25, 2006
2
Synthesis Themes

• Theme I From Standards to Access to Outcomes
• Theme II As Students Grow, What Happens?
• Theme III The Importance of Function, Health
  and Environment

3
Theme I From Standards to Access to Outcomes

• Trends in academic outcomes
• Trends in accessing the general education
  curriculum

• Policy actions supporting standards-based
  reform

4
Theme II As Students Grow, What Happens?

• Entry into special education
• Academic outcomes

• Exit from special education

5
Theme III The Importance of Function, Health,
and Environment

• Functioning and health

• Poverty, families, and district resources

Behavior
6
Theme I From Standards to Access to Outcomes
7
Theme I From Standards to Access to Outcomes

• Trends in academic outcomes
• Trends in accessing the general education
  curriculum

• Policy actions supporting standards-based
  reform

8
Trends in Academic OutcomesHeading in the Right
Direction

• From 1996 to 2004
• Graduation rates rose from 42 to 54
• Dropout rates declined from 47 to 31

9
Percentage of Students with Disabilities Who
Graduated from and Dropped Out of School, 1996 to
2004


Source State Reported Data to OSEP (DANS),
retrieved from www.ideadata.org


10
Trends in Academic OutcomesHeading in the Right
Direction

• From 1987 to 2003
• The rate of students with disabilities receiving
  high school diploma/certificate of completion
  rose from 54 to 70
• (NLTS-1 and 2 data)

11
Trends in Academic OutcomesHeading in the Right
Direction

• Since 1998, NAEP scores for students with
  disabilities rose
• from 176 to 190 (8), 4th grade reading
• from 231 to 245 (6), 8th grade math

12
Trends in Academic OutcomesHeading in the Right
Direction

• Since 1998, gaps in NAEP scores between students
  with and without disabilities narrowed
• from 41 to 32 points, 4th grade reading
• from 42 to 28 points, 8th grade math

13
(No Transcript)
14
Trends in Academic OutcomesHeading in the Right
Direction

• 44 states documented 3-year trends on assessments
• 42 states observed proficiency increases, none
  observed decreases
• (NCEO data)

15
Trends in Academic OutcomesHeading in the Right
Direction

• From 1987 to 2001, secondary students who were
• At typical grade level for their age grew from
  32 to 53
• Receiving above average grades doubled to more
  than half of youth with disabilities

16
Trends in Academic OutcomesHeading in the Right
Direction

• From 1987 to 2001
• Postsecondary enrollment of youth with
  disabilities rose from 15 to 32
• Four-year college enrollment rose from 1 to 9

17
Trends in Access to the General Education
Curriculum

• From 1997 to 2004
• The percentage of students with disabilities
  receiving instruction in the regular classroom
  80 or more of the school day increased from 47
  to 52.

18
Trends in Access to the General Education
Curriculum

• After years of growth, the percentage of students
  identified as having learning disabilities has
  declined.
• Growing categories are autism and other health
  impairment (which includes students with a
  primary disability of ADHD).

19
Trends in Access to the General Education
Curriculum

• From 1987 to 2001, secondary students have shown
• Increases in academic course taking (e.g.,
  math81 to 92).
• Increases of at least 8 percentage points in
  taking a general education academic class.
• Decreases in taking special education classes,
  91 to 70.

20
Access to the General Education Curriculum

• A wide variety of strategies and practices are
  used to support access
• Monitoring progress, additional time, and
  slower-paced instruction.
• Consultation, special materials, classroom aides,
  smaller classes.

21
Access to the General Education Curriculum

• Building capacity at the school level
• Developing confident and supported teachers.
• Turnover and preparation remain a concern.
• Support planning time and opportunities to
  collaborate.

22
Policy Actions Supporting Standards-Based Reform

• Embracing standards and accountability
• Setting expectations
• Issuing guidelines

23
Embracing Standards and Accountability

• Creating a public accountability system
• Using rewards or sanctions
• Providing resources

24

Percentage of States That Provided Resources To
Districts and Schools To Improve the Performance
of Students With IEPS

94
86
80
53
Source Schiller, E., OReilly, F., Fiore, T.
(2006). Marking the Progress of IDEA
Implementation. Bethesda, MD Abt Associates
Inc.


25
Strengthening Parent Involvement

• Involvement of families matters to attendance,
  grades, success in courses.
• State support and resourcesfor parent
  involvement matter to schools.
• Advocating for services is still the focus, and
  parents indicate dissatisfaction.

26
Accounting for Costs

• Increases in total spending are related to
  increases in total enrollment.
• Ratio of spending for special vs. general
  education student has declined from 2.28
  (1985-86) to 1.90 (1999-2000).

27
(No Transcript)
28
Theme I Summary

• Outcomes are improving
• Heading in the right direction
• Foundation set for addressing gaps and building
  capacity

29
Theme II As Students Grow, What Happens?
30
Theme II As Students Grow, What Happens?

• Special education
• Entry
• Exit
• Academic outcomes of students with disabilities

31
Disability Variation by Age

• Most preschoolers and elementary students with
  disabilities have speech/language impairments.
• Secondary school students are more likely to
  have learning disabilities.
• Educational settings for students with
  disabilities vary by age and disability.

32
(No Transcript)
33
Entry into Special Education

• From 1987 to 2001
• Average age at first identification of a
  disability has declined by .7 years.
• Average age of first service has declined by 1.1
  years.
• Time lag remains between age at first
  identification and age at first service (average
  of 1.5 years).

34
Exit from Special Education

• Special education status varies across time

35
Students with Disabilities, by Special Education
Status as of Spring 2002 (Wave 2)
36
Exit from Special Education

• Special education status varies by disability
  category.
• Most students who are declassified from special
  education had
• speech/language impairments (34)
• other health impairments (12) or
• emotional disturbances (10).

37
Academic outcomes

• The majority of students with disabilities score
  in the bottom quartile on standardized assessment
  of language arts.
• Scores are lower for secondary school than for
  elementary and middle school students.

38
Language Arts Skills of Students with
Disabilities
Mean percentile
Passage comprehension
24
19
25
30
Passage comprehension comparison between SEELS
and NLTS2 p lt .001. Sources SEELS Wave 1
student assessment, 2001 NLTS2 student
assessments, 2002 and 2004.
39
Academic outcomes

• Although the majority of students with
  disabilities also score in the bottom quartile on
  standardized assessment of math, math scores are
  higher than language arts scores.
• Scores are lower for secondary school than for
  elementary and middle school students.

40
Mathematics Skills of Students with Disabilities
Mean percentile
Mathematics calculation
38
27
Applied problems
34
25

p lt .001. Sources SEELS Wave 1 student
assessment, 2001 NLTS2 student assessments, 2002
and 2004.
41
Academic outcomes

• Standardized test scores are relatively stable
  over time, but vary by disability category.
• Students with speech or visual impairments have
  the highest scores and are most like the general
  population.
• Students with mental retardation or multiple
  disabilities have the lowest scores.

42
Academic outcomes

• Students who have been declassified from special
  education tend to have higher standardized test
  scores than those who continue to receive special
  education services.

43
Academic Performance of Declassified and
Non-declassified Students with Disabilities
Passage comprehension
69
49
Math calculation
91
77
Percentage in score range
W score points, WJ III Source Wave 1 SEELS
parent interviews and Students School Program
Survey.
44
Theme II Summary

• Gaps remain between age at first identification
  and age at first service.
• Roughly 20 of elementary and middle school
  students with disabilities are declassified over
  a 3-year period these students tend to do best
  on standardized assessments
• Students with disabilities are learning, but are
  not closing the gap with their non-disabled peers.

45
Theme III The Importance of Function, Health and
Environment
46
Theme III The Importance of Function, Health,
and Environment

• Health
• Functioning
• Poverty, families, and district resources
• Behavior

47
Health

• Compared with the general population, students
  with disabilities are somewhat less healthy
  overall.
• Children with disabilities tend to weigh less
  at birtha strong indicator of poor health in
  the future.

48
Functioning and HealthFix figure

49
Functioning and Health Fix figure
50
Functioning

• The functional implications of a students
  disability have implications for academic
  performance, educational programs, and
  educational expenditures.

51
Differences in Outcomes, Environment, and
Expenditures, by Disability Category
52
Functioning

• Cognitive skills childs ability to read,
  count, and calculate
• According to parents most students with
  disabilities perform moderately well on many
  cognitive skill tasks.
• Although skills are higher among older students,
  the majority of secondary school students with
  disabilities have at least some trouble with
  cognitive skills.

53
Functional Cognitive Skills
Elementary/middle school students with
disabilities
Secondary school students with disabilities
SourcesThe Children We Serve The Individual and
Household Characteristics of Elementary and
Middle School Students with Disabilities. The
Individual and Household Characteristics of Youth
with Disabilities.
54
Functioning

• Cognitive skills broadly influence various
  measures of academic performance
• Youth with high functional cognitive skill levels
  score significantly higher in in reading and
  mathematics compared with youth with low levels
  of such skills

55
Functioning

• Levels of functioning are significantly related
  to expenditure levels

56
Average Monthly Expenditure by Ability to Make
Needs Known at 36 Months

Average Monthly Expenditure by General Health at
36 Months

Source Levin, et al., (2004). National Early
Intervention Longitudinal Survey Expenditure
Study. Menlo Park, CA SRI International.
Source Levin, et al., (2004). National Early
Intervention Longitudinal Survey Expenditure
Study. Menlo Park, CA SRI International.
57
Poverty, Families, and District Resources

• Children with disabilities are more likely to
  come from low-income households than nondisabled
  peers.
• Students from higher-income households tend to
  have higher test scores in reading and math.

58
Poverty, Families, and District Resources

• Household income is also associated with health
  status.
• Children who live in low income households
  (lt25,000/year) are much more likely to be
  classified as in poor health status.

59
Poverty, Families, and District Resources

• Students from higher income households are more
  likely to be declassifed from special education.
• Household income does not appear to be associated
  with district spending on students with
  disabilities.

60
(No Transcript)
61
Poverty, Families, and District Resources

• Family involvement and expectations tend tobe
  associated with better academic and social
  outcomes for students with disabilities.

62
Poverty, Families, and District Resources

• Higher family involvement at school relates to
• Better reading performance
• Higher likelihood of belonging to organized
  groups
• More active friendships

63
Poverty, Families, and District Resources

• Higher expectations for students postsecondary
  education relate to
• Better reading and math performance
• Higher likelihood of belonging to organized
  groups
• More active friendships
• Lower likelihood of discipline trouble at school

64
Behavior

• Students with behavior-related disabilities
  include student with emotional disturbances,
  autism and other health impairments (most of whom
  have ADHD).
• They tend to have lower classroom engagement and
  attendance, are more often subject to
  disciplinary action, and have higher dropout
  rates than other students with disabilities.

65
Behavior

• Nevertheless, the academic performance of
  students with emotional disturbances is as good
  as or better than that of students with learning
  disabilities.
• Students with emotional disturbances are the
  least likely of all disability categories to
  finish high school (56 do so), but their school
  completion rate has increased (up 16 percentage
  points since 1987).

66
Behavior

• When school-wide behavior management approaches
  are implemented as intended, research has shown
  improvements in behavioral and academic outcomes.

67
Behavior

• 20-60 reduction in office discipline referrals
  for students with disabilities and nondisabled
  students
• Increases in the time students spend in
  instruction
• Decreases in time administrators and teachers
  spend addressing problem behaviors
• Improvement in the perception of school safety
  and mental health, through decreases in risk
  factors and increases in protective factors.

68
Theme III Summary

• The functional implications of disability
  powerfully influence student outcomes.
• Families matter. Outcomes for students with
  disabilities are better when families have
  sufficient resources and high involvement and
  expectations.
• Poverty is particularly strongly related to poor
  outcomes for students with disabilities.

69
Theme III Summary

• Students with behavior-related issues are more
  likely to have poor school-related outcomes,
  despite having better academic skills than many
  students with disabilities
• School-wide behavior management approaches can be
  effective in improving behavioral and academic
  student outcomes.

70

• Reflections on 30 Years of Progress and the Work
  Ahead

71
Questions for Panelists

• What are the implications of what we have learned
  to date from the IDEA 97 national assessment
  studies for
• Policy?
• Practice?
• Professional development?
• What questions remain? i.e., what do we most need
  to learn from a national assessment of IDEA 2004?

72
For more information

• http//www.sri.com/neils
• http//www.peels.org
• http//www.seels.net
• http//www.nlts2.org
• http//www.csef-air.org
• http//ferdig.coe.ufl.edu/spense
• http//abt.sliidea.org