Printer Friendly

Juvenile correctional schools: assessment and accountability policies and practices.

Introduction

In response to thirty years of concern with student achievement on both national and international assessments, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) was developed to promote a rigorous education for all students. NCLB has led to an increased focus on establishing challenging standards, measuring student learning against those standards, and holding schools and local education agencies (LEAs) accountable for student achievement (Kohl, McLaughlin, & Nagle, 2006). The central components of NCLB ensure all students participate in state assessments, assessment accommodations are appropriately used and assessment results are utilized, as well as publicly reported. NCLB also incorporates accountability for student learning, which emphasizes student performance on state assessments as a basis of providing rewards and sanctions to schools (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006).

The assessment and accountability requirements within NCLB (2002) were designed to promote a high quality education for all youth, including students with disabilities, in a variety of educational settings. In fact, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act regulations (IDEIA, 2004) are aligned with NCLB in an effort to ensure youth with disabilities are also included in the system of educational accountability.

Despite the intentions behind NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004), there are concerns that the promises of educational assessment and accountability do not extend to all youth. Limited evidence suggests that adherence to federal education mandates are a significant and longstanding issue of concern for youth with and without disabilities in exclusionary school settings (Gagnon & McLaughlin, 2004; Gagnon, Maccini, & Haydon, 2009). Juvenile correctional schools for committed youth (JC) are one exclusionary school setting with the worst record of adhering to federal education reform (Browne, 2003; Coffey & Gemignani, 1994; Leone, 1994). The mandates in NCLB do not specifically address the unique characteristics of youth (e.g., mental health, short length of stay) and systemic difficulties (e.g., security issues) within JC schools (Leone & Cutting, 2004). However, there is no legal justification for denying youth in JC schools with and without disabilities the same educational opportunities, participation in state assessments, and inclusion in accountability measures that are significant components of public schools. The sections that follow will briefly discuss the federal mandates as they apply to JC schools and include (a) participation in state assessments, (b) assessment accommodations, and (c) accountability.

Participation in State Assessments

NCLB (2002, see PL 107-110 [section] 1001(4)) requires that students with and without disabilities participate in state assessments. Participation is viewed as critical to improving educational opportunities for students and providing information to schools and communities concerning student performance (Nagle, Yunker, & Malmgren, 2006; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Morse, 2005). One of the primary ways policy makers aligned IDEIA with NCLB was to require that students with disabilities also be included in state- or district-wide assessments (IDEA, 2004, see PL 108-446 Sec. 612); NCLB, see PL 107-110 [section]1001(1)). Over time, an increasing number of youth with disabilities have participated in state assessments (Ysseldyke, Dennison, & Nelson, 2004). However, it is unclear the extent to which youth with or without disabilities in JC schools participate in state assessments.

Assessment Accommodations

Assessment accommodations are defined as altering assessment materials and/or procedures in a manner that eliminates the influence of the student disability and allow students to show their knowledge (Shriner & Ganguly, 2007). States are required to develop assessment accommodations that are considered valid and do not nullify student scores (NCLB, 2002, see PL 107-110 [section] 704(b)(4)(x); 2004, see PL 108-446 [section]612(a)(16)(B) and 614(d)(1)(A)(VI)(aa)); Thompson, Johnstone, Thurlow, & Altman, 2005; Zeninsky & Sireci, 2007). All states require schools to adhere to a state list of approved accommodations and, as such, school personnel must be aware of these policies (Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Morse, 2005). Currently, there is no information available that indicates the basis for JC school assessment policy and adherence to policy has not been studied.

Accountability

High-stakes assessments are commonly used to place students in appropriate classrooms, decide if students should be promoted to the next grade, and whether or not they should graduate from high school (Ysseldyke, Dennison, & Nelson, 2004). Currently, with regard to JC schools, there is no information that identifies common uses of state assessment results. Existing accountability requirements within NCLB (2002, see PL 107-110 [section] 1119(b)(1)(A) and (B)) also call for schools to publicly report student results on state assessments. However, no post-NCLB research exists that addresses JC school reporting of student scores on state assessments. As such, school level approaches taken by JC schools to use and report state assessment data are unclear.

Rewards and sanctions. The emphasis on education accountability is a continuation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) original goal to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their peers, as well as for all students to reach grade level proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014 (Kohl, McLaughlin, & Nagle, 2006). To achieve student proficiency, NCLB (2002) established state and school accountability that emphasizes student performance as a basis for rewards and sanctions (2002, see PL 107-110 [section] (1111)(2)(A)(iii)); Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006). Indicators for school accountability typically include student performance on state assessments, performance growth on state assessments, attendance rates, and dropout rates (Bolt, Krentz, & Thurlow, 2002). A significant component of the accountability system is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which is based primarily on student scores on state assessments (NCLB, see PL 107-110 [section] (6161)(1)); Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis). Whether a school achieves AYP typically results in rewards or sanctions that commonly include providing or withholding money (Bolt, Krentz, & Thurlow).

AYP, as well as school rewards and sanctions, apply to schools across the continuum of services, including JC schools. However, it is currently unknown how JC schools are held accountable, the indicators that are used by the state to determine positive and negative consequences for these schools, and the percentage of JC schools that make AYP are not known. For JC schools to be included in current accountability reform, it is critical that such questions are answered.

Currently, there is no research that identifies if students with and without disabilities in JC schools are included in current school-level accountability systems. There is a critical need to understand the extent which students in JC schools are benefiting from the emphasis on participation in state assessments, appropriate use of assessment accommodations, and assessment results. Further, it is important to identify the extent to which these schools are reporting assessment results publicly and being held accountable for student learning.

Purpose

The purpose of the current national survey of public and private JC school principals was to identify policies, practices and philosophies concerning (a) participation in state assessments, (b) assessment accommodations, (c) how respondent views toward participation of students in state assessment compares across achievement of AYP, and (d) school accountability.

Methods

Instrumentation

The current survey of principals was conducted throughout the U.S. and included five primary sections at the school-level: (a) school, principal, and student characteristics; (b) curriculum policies and practices; (c) assessment policies and practices; and (d) accountability policies and practices. The current report focuses solely on assessment and accountability policies and practices. The other survey topics are discussed in a separate report by Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, and Leone (2009).

Three procedures were completed to ensure reliability of survey data. First, surveys maintained the same format for both hard copy and online versions (Fink, 1995). Second, to ensure decisions were consistently followed, a codebook was developed and used during data entry (Litwin, 1995). Finally, reliability checks were conducted on data entered for 30% (n = 39) of the 131 returned surveys. Reliability was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100%. Reliability for data entry was 99.97%.

Specific methods were used to increase survey validity. To ensure content validity, research questions were developed based on a review of literature, consideration of current educational reform, personal expertise, and discussion with experts in the field of special education. Next, an advisory group reviewed and made recommendations regarding the survey and study methodology. Also, principal focus groups commented on the format and content of the surveys. The survey was modified based on the advisory group and focus group feedback.

The survey included questions concerning assessment (e.g., Should students in your school participate in state assessments? What percentage of students in your school participate in state assessments? If less than 95% of students participated, why did students not participate? What percentage of students of students with disabilities in your school participate in state assessments? What percentage of students participate in an assessment that is required by another state? What is the basis of school policies for assessment accommodations on state assessments? To what extent are state accommodations that students with EBD or LD have on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) used during classroom instruction?) and school accountability (e.g., Which describes how results of state assessments are used in your school? What is the basis for how your school uses state assessment results? Which indicators are used by the state to determine school consequences? How is your school held accountable for student participation in state assessments? How does your school report assessment results for students with disabilities? Did your school make AYP last school year?).

Sample and Participant Selection

The sample was initially identified using the description of the facilities' programs. Three criteria needed to be present in the description: (a) committed/adjudicated youth (court commitment); (b) closed/secure facility; and (c) education services provided on-site. Variations in JC schools for committed youth required delineation of specific programs that would not apply. Programs that did not qualify were juvenile: (a) community corrections (i.e., not a secure care facility); (b) probation; (c) parole; (d) detention; (e) accountability camps; (f) programs with no education component; (g) incomplete or inaccurate information in the database; and (h) program was closed or not yet open. As a secondary check of the universe, state websites were reviewed. As a result, 63 additional facilities were identified from the website information as possibly meeting the criteria for the study. These facilities were individually called to ensure they met the criteria for inclusion in the universe. Twelve additional programs were included based on phone call verification.

During the planning stages, both coverage error and sampling error were considered. Use of a comprehensive database is an important factor for reducing coverage error (Wei Wei, 2003). Therefore, the original universe of juvenile correction schools for committed youth was taken from the most comprehensive database available. The 2003 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies, and Probation and Parole Authorities (American Correctional Association, 2003) was the basis of the universe. To minimize sampling error, the beginning of each survey included two questions to verify that participants were eligible for the study. The questions included: (a) Is your school a juvenile correctional school for committed youth? and (b) Does your school include students in any of grades 7-12?

Potential participants were directed to return the survey without completing it, if they answered no to either of the initial questions.

A total of 483 schools met criteria for inclusion in the study. Based on concerns with a possible low response rate, 400 of the qualifying schools were randomly selected. Assuming approximately 50% (n = 200) response rate, consistent with other exclusionary schools in national surveys (see Gagnon & McLaughlin, 2004), responses would approach the 214 needed for a 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval. Upon return of the surveys, 17 schools were excluded from the database due to the following issues: (a) not a JC school (n = 14); (b) facility closed (n = 2); and (c) no grades 7-12 (n = 1). Thus, the total sample size was 383.

Data Collection

Consistent with Heberlein and Baumgartner's (1978) recommendations, multiple contacts and reminders to participants included an introductory letter, five survey mailings, and follow-up phone calls that began after the second mailing. Respondents were also able to respond via hard copies of the surveys or online. Additionally, the surveys all included consistent and specific directions, as well as notation of government sponsorship. Moreover, all principals in the sample received an incentive at the time of the first survey mailing in the form of a $2.00 bill. As suggested by Bourque and Fielder (1995), participants were also assured of confidentiality and anonymity, provided an estimate of the time needed to complete the survey, details concerning when and how to return the survey, and contact information in the event they wanted a summary of the final results.

Respondents and Nonrespondents

The response rate for the survey was 34.22% (131/383). One hundred and twenty-one principals returned hard copies of surveys and another ten completed the survey online. Respondent and nonrespondent comparisons were conducted at the school level using information available from the 2003 Directory of Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies, and Probation and Parole Authorities (American Correctional Association, 2003) and, for 12 schools, the state website. Comparisons were completed across U.S. Census Bureau region, security level (i.e., maximum, medium, medium/maximum, minimum, multiple), contract (i.e., private company) or non-contract, and gender served (i.e., male, female, co-gender). Based on chi-square analysis, no significant differences were noted for any of the comparisons.

Respondents included principals from 41 states and all U.S. census regions (n = 131) were represented (n = 31 Midwest; n = 19 Northeast; n = 60 South; n = 21 West). Descriptive data was not available for all variables for all respondent schools. However, available information indicates that each security level (n = 109) was represented (n = 38 maximum; 34 = medium; n = 6 combination medium/maximum; n = 19 minimum; n = 12 multiple levels of security) and concerning the type of facility (n = 131) there were 32 contract facilities and 99 non-contract facilities. Also, with regard to the gender served at facilities (n = 125), 82 facilities were only for males, 12 facilities for females, 31 co-gender facilities.

Data Analysis

Data analysis included descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis. Descriptive statistics included frequency, percent, mean, standard deviation (SD) and sum, as appropriate. Chi-square analyses were conducted to identify principal views of student participation in state assessment (yes, no) across school achievement of AYP (yes, no, don't know). Cramer's V was used when calculating effect size for the comparison. A common alpha of .05 was maintained for all data analysis.

For seven questions, respondents had the option to write in an Other response (i.e., assessment (e.g., If less than 95% of students participated, why did students not participate? What is the basis of school policies for assessment accommodations on state assessments? Which describes how results of state assessments are used in your school? What is the basis for how your school uses state assessment results? Which indicators are used by the state to determine school consequences? How is your school held accountable for student participation in state assessments? How does your school report assessment results for students with disabilities?). Analysis of data from open-ended responses was completed using the following procedures: (a) a graduate student identified preliminary categories through a review of responses and coded each response into one or more categories; (b) data was independently placed into categories by another graduate student and categories were modified, as needed; (d) the graduate students discussed areas of convergence and divergence, (e) categories were adjusted, added, or deleted, as needed, (f) each graduate student recoded the data; and (g) a final discussion and calculation of reliability was completed (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Results

Participation in State Assessments

Principals answered questions concerning student participation in state assessments (see Table 1). Principals commonly asserted that students at their school should participate in state assessments (n = 89, 68.5%). Overall, 80.07% (n = 112, SD = 34.67) of respondents reported that students participated in state assessments. Also, six principals reported that they did not know the percentage of students who participated in state assessments. Further, eight principals reported that participation in state assessments was not applicable. Concerning students with disabilities, 83.49% (n = 108, SD = 33.56) participated. Ten principals reported that they did not know the percentage of students with disabilities who participated. Another 10 principals noted that participation in state assessments was not applicable for students with disabilities. Respondents also reported the percentage of students that participate in a state assessment that is required by another state. For the 121 respondents, 94 reported that 0% of their students are served from outside the state. One principal reported that 100% of his/her students were from another state. In addition, 26 principals noted that they did not know if youth were served from states other than where the facility was located.

For those respondents who reported less than 95% of students participated in state assessments, they were asked to check all the reasons that applied for student lack of participation (see Table 1). The most common reasons for not participating in state assessments were listed under the Other category (n = 38) were that students did not participate due to student or school exemption (n = 14) and students were not in a grade that required testing (n = 13). Also, listed within the Other category were (a) student length of stay was too short for participation (n = 4), (b) safety reasons (n = 3), (c) students already graduated (n = 2), and (d) students were preparing for the GED (n = 2).
Table 1. Participation in State Assessments

Characteristics No. (%)

Should Students Participate in State Assessments in
Your School?

Yes 89 (68.5%)

No 41 (31.5%)

If less than 95% of Students Do Not Participate in
Assessments, Why?

Not Applicable, All Students Participate 40 (--)

Emotional Distress 7 (--)

The Assessments are Too Difficult 7 (--)

Students are from Another LEA 3 (--)

Students are from Another State 0 (--)

Do Not Have a School Policy 1 (--)

I Don't Know 3 (--)

Other 38 (--)

Note: -- = Percentages not calculated because question asks
respondents to, "choose all that apply"; LEA = Local Education
Agency


Assessment Accommodations

Principals were asked questions concerning the use of state assessment accommodations during instruction and the basis for these assessment accommodations (see Table 2). Principals most frequently reported that the accommodations were used To a Great Extent during instruction (n = 91, 71.7%). Overall, the average response on the four-point scale (1 = not at all; 4 = to a great extent), was 3.57 (SD =.79). The most common basis of school policies for assessment accommodations was state accommodation guidelines (n = 80, 67.2%). Additionally, for the nine principals that noted an Other basis, the responses were student IEPs (n = 4), students were exempt or the question was not applicable (n = 4), or the school used a combination of state and federal guidelines (n = 1).
Table 2. Assessment Accommodations

Characteristics No. (%)

Extent to Which State Accommodations that Students
with EBD or LD have on their IEPs are Used During
Classroom Instruction

Not at all 5 (3.9%)

Very Little 9 (7.1%)

Somewhat 22 (17.3%)

To a Great Extent 91 (71.7%)

Don't Know 0 (0)

Basis for School Policies for Assessment
Accommodations on State Assessments

LEA Accommodations Guidelines 17 (14.3%)

State Accommodations Guidelines 80 (67.2%)

School Developed Assessment Accommodations 10 (8.4%)
Guidelines

No Identified Basis for Assessment Accommodations 1 (.8%)

Don't Know 2 (1.7%)

Other 9 (7.6%)

Note: -- = Percentages not calculated because question asks
respondents to, "choose all that apply"; LEA = Local Education
Agency


Participation and Characteristics

Respondent views toward participation of students in state assessment were compared across achievement of AYP. No statistical significance was noted for achievement of AYP and whether or not principals asserted that students should participate in state assessments.

Accountability

Respondents reported all applicable uses of state assessments and factors on which the uses of assessments are based (see Table 3). Most commonly, principals reported that state assessment results were used to adjust instruction or curriculum (n = 64) and identify areas in which the school performance is acceptable and where improvement is needed (n = 63). Where principals noted an Other use for state assessment results, responses included school is exempt/not applicable (n = 7), develop individual plans of instruction (n = 2), and obtain accreditation (n = 1). The most common basis for schools' use of state assessments was the state guidelines (n = 54). The next most frequent response concerning the use of assessment results was school developed guidelines (n = 37). Of the respondents, 59 reported a basis other than State Education Agency (SEA) or Local Education Agency (LEA) guidelines. Some principals noted Other concerning the basis of using state assessments. Other assertions related to the use of state assessments included agency developed guidelines (n = 2) and the school was exempt from state assessments (n = 9).
Table 3. Basis and Use of Assessment Results

Characteristics No. (%)

How Results of State Assessments are Used in Your
School

Adjust Instruction or Curriculum 64 (--)

Make Decisions Regarding Student Placement within 21 (--)
the School

Make Decisions Regarding Student Grade-Level 18 (--)
Promotion

Make Decisions Regarding Student Return to Public 12 (--)
or Home School

Evaluate Teachers 13 (--)

Identify Areas in Which School Performance is 63 (--)
Acceptable and Where Improvement Is Needed

Results are not used at the School Level 26 (--)

Don't Know 3 (--)

Other 12 (--)

Basis for How School Uses State Assessment Results

LEA Guidelines 29 (--)

State Guidelines 54 (--)

School Developed Guidelines 37 (--)

No Identified Guidelines 23 (--)

Don't Know 8 (--)

Other 12 (--)

Note: -- = Percentages not calculated because question asks
respondents to, "choose all that apply"; LEA = Local
Education Agency


Concerning reporting of assessment results for students with disabilities, principals reported that the most common approaches were reporting results to the state as part of aggregate data (n = 63) and at the school level (n = 55). The two Other responses included that the school was exempt from (n = 5) and results were reported to an education liaison or case worker (n = 2).

As shown in Table 4, respondents answered three questions concerning accountability for student learning: (a) if the school made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the previous school year; (b) the methods used to hold schools accountable for participation in state assessments; and (c) indicators used by the state to determine school consequences. While some respondents noted that their school did make AYP (n = 40, 34.5%), the most frequent response was that principals did not know if their school made AYP (n = 56, 48.3%). Concerning methods of holding schools accountable, most JC school principals reported there was no process for accountability for student participation and performance on state assessments (n = 42). An additional 24 principals did not know how their school was held accountable. For those respondents who reported Other methods of being held accountable, answers included: (a) LEA, home school, or district is accountable (n = 8); (b) state or Dept. of Juvenile Justice requirements (n = 7); (c) school is exempt (n = 13); (d) student portfolios (n = 1); (e) graduation requirements (n = 1); (f) quality review (n = 4); (g) AYP (n = 1); (h) state assessment (n = 1); and (i) achievement tests (n = 1).
Table 4. Reporting and Accountability

Accountability Issue No. (%)

How School Reports State Assessment Results for
Students with Disabilities

Results Reported at the School Level 55 (--)

Results Reported to the LEA as Part of Aggregate 37 (--)
Data

Results Reported to the State as Part of Aggregate 63 (--)
Data

Individual Results Reported to Individual 43 (--)
Parents/Guardians

Results Reported to Student's Home School and LEA 37 (--)

Results Not Reported 1 (--)

Don't Know 9 (--)

Other: 16 (--)

Did School Make Adequate Yearly Progress

Yes 40 (34.5%)

No 20 (17.2%)

Don't Know 56 (48.3%)

Indicators Used by State to Determine School
Consequences

Student Participation Rates on State Assessments 57 (--)

Scores on State Assessments 48 (--)

Improvement on State Assessment Scores 43 (--)

Attendance 42 (--)

Drop out Rates 21 (--)

Graduation Rates 29 (--)

Don't Know 28 (--)

Other 25 (--)

How School is Held Accountable for Student
Participation in State Assessments

School Sanctions Based on Student Participation and 22 (--)
Performance on State Assessments

Monetary Incentives Based on Student Participation 9 (--)
and Performance on State Assessments

No Formal Process to Hold Schools Accountable for 42 (--)
Student Participation and Performance on State
Assessments

Don't Know 24 (--)

Other 37 (--)

Note. LEA = Local Education Agency

Note: -- = Percentages not calculated because question asks
respondents to, "choose all that apply"


The most common indicators used by the state to determine school consequences were student participation rates on state assessments (n = 57) and student scores on state assessments (n = 48). Also 28 principals did not know the indicators used by the state. Few patterns were noted for Other indicators reported by respondents. Responses included: (a) consequences based on student classroom behavior (n = 1); (b) no indicators are used (n = 10); (c) another agency/home district determines consequences (n = 8); (d) percentage of students that complete a GED (n = 2); (e) the extent to which there is minority overrepresentation (n = 1); (f) report cards/progress notes (n = 1); and (g) reading/math improvement (n = 1).

Discussion

The results of the current investigation supply the first national picture of assessment and accountability policies and practices in JC schools. Results indicate that numerous concerns must be addressed to ensure youth with and without disabilities in JC schools are included in current assessment and accountability systems. The discussion focuses on three? key areas concerning JC school policies and practices (a) participation in state assessments, (b) assessment accommodations, and (c) accountability.

Participation

Only about 69% of principals asserted that students in their JC school should participate in state assessments. However, there was no statistical significance noted for achievement of AYP and whether principals asserted that students should participate in state assessments. Two conclusions can be made, in light of the lack of significance. First, principal personal views may not be a critical factor when school assessment policies and practices are developed and implemented. Alternatively, there could be a lack of LEA and SEA oversight of schools (see Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009) that affects the validity of school attainment of AYP. The possibility of insufficient oversight is even more of a possibility when considering that almost half of principals in the current study did not know if their school achieved AYP. One could assume that, if JC schools were accountable for achieving AYP, principals would be aware of their school's progress.

In contrast to principal views of whether students should participate in state assessments, it was reported that a higher percentage of students in JC schools actually participated. However, it remains a concern that only slightly more than 80% of students with or without disabilities in JC schools participated in state assessments. Neither NCLB (2002) nor IDEIA (2004) contains provisions that specifically allow students with or without disabilities in JC schools to forego participation in state assessments. As such, it is expected that, consistent with NCLB mandates, at least 95% of students in JC schools would participate in state assessments. One possible complication of student participation could be that JC schools provide education to students from other states (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009). In the current study, however, only one JC school had students from another state. What is particularly interesting is that approximately one-fourth of principals did not know if youth at their facility were from other states. A lack of principal knowledge could inhibit student participation in another state's assessment, if needed.

Principals were asked why, if less than 95% of students participated in state assessments, some students do not participate. The most common answer was that all students participate in state assessments (n = 40). Principals reported varied reasons for lack of student participation. The most frequent response, by 17 principals, was that students did not participate due to an individual or school exemption. For the principals that cited exemptions, additional research is necessary to understand the context surrounding these exemptions and by whom the exemptions were given. Overall, remaining principal explanations were not ones that states typically accept as valid. For example, principals identified that students did not participate due to emotional distress; a reason for non-participation that is not valid in any state (Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, Eisenbraun, & Kato, 2006). Principals reported other reasons for exemption, including the assessments were too difficult, students were from another LEA, and safety reasons. The varied responses from principals indicate that there are several complications for JC schools concerning student participation in state assessments. What is clear is that principals of JC schools are in need of guidance and policies that maintain federal requirements and also take into consideration the unique attributes of JC schools.

Assessment Accommodations

Principals were asked about the use of assessment accommodations in class, as well as the basis of assessment accommodations. Only 71.1% of respondents answered that, for youth with EBD and LD, assessment accommodations were used in class To a Great Extent. When students are not provided opportunities to apply appropriate accommodations on a regular basis, they might not be able to demonstrate what they know and can do (Shriner & Ganguly, 2007). Slightly more than two-thirds of principals responded that the most common basis of school policies for assessment accommodations was state accommodation guidelines. Results also indicate that close to 20% of schools did not base accommodations on SEA or LEA guidelines. This raises concern because when schools do not use LEA or SEAs guidelines as a basis for accommodation decisions, the reporting of student scores may be affected (Thompson et al., 2005). Specifically, use of school-developed assessment accommodations may result in the use of unapproved assessment accommodations, which could invalidate student assessment scores (Malmgren, McLaughlin, & Nolet, 2005). However, it is not clear from the current data that those schools that did not use SEA or LEA guidelines necessarily used assessment accommodations that did not align with the district and/or state. Additional research is needed to provide a definitive statement of school decisions regarding assessment accommodation choices.

Accountability

Using assessment results. The two most common responses reported by principals for describing how results of state assessments are used in their schools was to adjust instruction or curriculum (n = 64), and to identify areas of acceptable school performance and needed improvement (n = 63). It is encouraging that principals are appropriately using assessment results. However, some principals reported using state assessments to place students within their school or to decide if a student should return to public school. In fact classroom placement, at the secondary level, should be based on student age/grade and courses needed for graduation. Moreover, it is wholly inappropriate to rely on state assessment results to establish if a student should return to their regular public school upon release from a JC school. No provision exists with IDEIA (2004) or NCLB (2002) that relates formerly incarcerated youth success on state assessment with the right to attend public school upon release. Additionally, it is a concern that some principals did not use assessment results. When state assessment results are not utilized, students are less likely to advance to the next grade or graduate from high school (Thurlow & Johnson, 2000; Ysseldyke, Dennison, & Nelson, 2004).

Principal responses varied with regard to the basis for their schools' use of state assessment results. The most frequent basis was state guidelines (n = 54) followed by school-developed guidelines (n = 37), and LEA guidelines (n = 29). A smaller number of principals reported that there were no guidelines used as a basis of their schools' use of assessments (n = 23). The use of school-developed guidelines raises questions as to whether school policies are aligned with approved and recommended LEA and SEA approaches to using state assessments. What is more alarming, is that many JC schools have no identified guidelines for using state assessment results and that some principals were unaware of the existence of any guidelines on which to base their use of state assessment. The lack of guidelines runs contrary to the emphasis within NCLB (2002) for the standardization of school accountability.

Reporting assessment results. Most responding principals noted that for students with disabilities, scores on state assessments were reported (a) to the state as part of aggregate data (n = 63), (b) at the school level (n = 55), and (c) to individual parents on their child (n = 43). Less than half of responding principals noted using any single method of reporting assessment results. The relatively few JC schools that report results in any particular manner raise concerns because reporting of student assessments results is a key component of accountability (Gagnon & McLaughlin, 2004). When schools do not report scores for some students on state assessments, the message is that certain students are less important and do not "count" (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2008). In fact, all 50 states have a method for reporting proficiency of students with disabilities on state assessments (VanGetson & Thurlow, 2007).

It is true, however, that schools are not required to report the scores of students with disabilities if the number of students in a school does not meet state requirements (Leone & Cutting, 2004). The current study does not identify current levels of students with disabilities and whether they are exempt from reporting state assessment results. What is clear is that many JC schools are never held accountable because there is no public reporting of assessment results. The lack of public reporting makes it difficult to know if these schools are successfully educating our most troubled youth.

Holding schools accountable. Most principals (n = 42) reported there was no process for accountability for student participation and performance on state assessments. An additional 24 principals did not know how their school was held accountable. Also of significant concern is that only about 35% of JC schools reportedly made AYP and another 48% of principals did not know if their school made AYP. The lack of accountability, principal knowledge related to accountability, and school success in achieving AYP are all troubling issues. Concerns are amplified when considering that, nationally, 81% of JC schools report being accredited by their SEA (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009).

It is difficult to conjecture the reasons for the gaps in accountability and principals' understanding of accountability. However, some issues may shed light on the current status of JC schools. For example, recent research indicated that approximately one-third of JC Principals are not certified as principals or administrators (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009). Although the link may be indirect, certification is one common measure of principal qualification (Gates et al., 2003). It is also possible that accountability for student learning in JC schools is affected by minimum subgroup sizes. Specifically, there may be a relatively high percentage of youth in a facility in special education, as compared to the total population of that facility (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone). However, if the subgroup of students classified as special education is still below the minimum subgroup size that is set by the state, this could affect whether these students are included in accountability measures. "In other words, if a school (or district) does not have the minimum number of students for a subgroup, that subgroup is treated as meeting AYP for the purposes of determining whether the school (or district) met AYP" (Cortiella, 2007, p. 18). In effect, an entire school with a small population and high percentage of students with disabilities could be overlooked with regard to AYP.

Principals reported two common indicators used by the state to determine school consequences: (a) student participation rates on state assessments (n = 57); and (b) student scores on state assessments (n = 48). However, 28 principals did not know the indicators used by the state. It can be assumed that those principals who are unaware of indicators use by the state are uninformed because such consequences do not apply to their school.

Limitations

Two limitation to the study existed. First, similar to other survey research (Crawford & Tindal, 2006; Donovan & Nickerson, 2007), the response rate of 34.22% was less than the typically accepted 50% rate for mail surveys (Weisberg, Krosnick, Bowen, 1989). However, there was a concerted effort to ensure appropriate power and a randomized sample. In addition, the reliability of the results is indicated by the fact that no significant differences existed across responding and nonresponding schools. The second limitation was the possibility of principals reporting information that may not be accurate. However, principals made some rather unsettling admissions that included a lack of knowledge on several issues. For example, the most common response to whether their school made AYP was Do Not Know. The admission supports the idea that principals were willing to indicate their shortcomings, when appropriate. In light of these factors, it is appropriate to assert that the study results are representative of JC schools for committed youth throughout the U.S.

Implications

Future Research

The current study provides an initial and troubling snapshot of assessment and accountability policies and practices within JC schools. However, several issues require additional investigation using a variety of research methodologies within the central areas of participation in state assessment, assessment accommodations, reporting and using assessment results, and school accountability. For example, in-depth case study, observation, and interview research are needed to identify why principals often believe that many students should not participate and, in fact, do not participate in state assessments while in JC schools. Additional studies would also provide data concerning the situations under which JC schools can obtain an exemption or waiver for student participation in state assessments. As such, the reasons for and methods of obtaining exemptions are areas in which there is a great need for research. Moreover, data is needed concerning the extent to which LEAs, SEA, and correctional education agencies in charge of education, delineate policies and practices for youth with disabilities in JC schools that are consistent with NCLB (2002) and IDEIA (2004).

It is possible, given the complex academic, social and emotional needs of youth with and without disabilities in JC schools that a large number of students in this setting may participate in a state assessment that is based on modified achievement standards. The 2007 NCLB regulations that have been published since the current study was conducted, allow for such assessments. However, it is unclear how this provision will alter assessment of these volatile youth. Additional research is needed to monitor the potentially disproportional effects of this policy on youth in JC schools.

Results from the current study indicate a number of other future research directions for student assessment accommodations. Similar to other educational settings, there are concerns that students in JC schools may not be receiving the accommodations that are listed on their IEPs during the actual assessment (Bottsford-Miller, Thurlow, Stout, & Quenemoen, 2006; Shriner & DeStefano, 2003). Future research could evaluate fidelity of teacher implementation of accommodations by using a combination of student and teacher surveys, direct observations of teachers, and IEP review. Also, research is needed to discover the actual accommodations provided by JC schools, how teachers are using accommodations, and the types of students to whom accommodations are given. Additionally, Shriner and Ganguly (2007) noted the importance of providing assessment accommodations based on student-specific characteristics, as well as individual test items. Future research should assess the extent to which student characteristics and test items are considered when making assessment accommodations decisions, as well as "which accommodations are appropriate for which individuals" (Thurlow, Thompson, & Lazarus, 2006, p. 665).

The present research sets the stage for additional investigations concerning the use of state assessment results. For example, information is needed concerning the alignment of school developed versus LEA or SEA guidelines for use of state assessment results. Moreover, additional research can lead to an understanding of why schools develop their own guidelines, what they used to develop guidelines, and what they do in lieu of either having or knowing guidelines to assist in the appropriate use of state assessment results.

Future research is also necessary to identify key accountability issues and the extent to which JC schools: (a) provide an assessment that is aligned with grade-level standards; (b) report results according to students that achieved at levels of basic, proficient or advanced; (c) disaggregate data for youth with disabilities; (d) establish specific performance objectives for subgroups; and (e) measure AYP according to sub-groups of students' who achieve proficient levels (Malmgren, McLaughlin, & Nolet, 2005). For example, one of the main requirements of NCLB is public reporting of student performance on state assessments that are disaggregated by several groups, including students with disabilities (National Center on Educational Outcomes, n.d.). However, it remains unclear if JC schools are reporting disaggregated assessment results and if they are not, what barriers exist that inhibit the appropriate reporting of results. Schools are not obligated to report the scores of students with disabilities if the number of students in a school does not meet state requirements (Leone & Cutting, 2004). Additional issues may exist in light of recent amendments to NCLB (see Title 1-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEIA), 2007). It is unclear how requirements for minimum numbers of students and requirements of the same number of students in subgroups will affect JC schools, in which there are typically relatively small numbers of students. Conceivably, the low number of students in JC schools could exclude students from important accountability requirements and AYP. Future research should identify the number of students per school in subgroups identified by IDEIA in order to determine if results are appropriately reporting.

In the current study, almost half of schools were not held accountable for student learning. Some states allow accountability measures for special schools that are different from public schools or allow these schools to choose their own accountability measure (Bolt, Krentz, & Thurlow, 2002). The allowed variation in accountability measures may explain some of the variability in how JC schools are held accountable and the reasons that many JC schools are not held accountable. While these variations may take specific JC school characteristics into consideration, this is not definitely known. Additional information is necessary to identify the reasons that JC schools are functioning outside of current accountability processes.

Conclusions

The education of youth in JC schools is a challenge that is often complicated by a high percentage of youth with disabilities (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). As such, adherence to IDEIA (2004) and NCLB (2002) may be difficult (Leone & Cutting, 2004). However, the stakes are extremely high for youth with and without disabilities in JC schools and academic failure may contribute to lifelong problems with recidivism and joblessness (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001; Katsiyannis, & Archwamety, 1999; U.S. Department of Labor, 2003).

Unfortunately, results of the current study provide a disturbing picture of both a lack of principal knowledge and a lack of consistent assessment and accountability policies and practices in JC schools. The concerns are amplified when considering that over 80% of JC schools nationally are accredited by their State Department of Education (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009). Clearly, there is a need for principal professional development and communication with LEAs and SEAs concerning assessment and accountability policies. In fact, SEA Directors of Special Education have recognized the positive effects that increased communication can have on such issues as student participation in state assessments (Thompson et al., 2005). Moreover, a clear link between adherence to IDEIA and NCLB should be an integral part of school accreditation. It is through communication and holding schools accountable that youth in JC schools will be assured of access to a free and appropriate public education.

References

American Correctional Association. (2003). The 2003 directory of adult and juvenile correctional departments, institutions, agencies, and probation and parole authorities. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Bolt, S., Krentz, J., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Are we there yet? Accountability for the performance of students with disabilities (NCEO Technical Report 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.

Bottsford-Miller, N., Thurlow, M.L., Stout, K.E., & Quenemoen, R.F. (2006). A comparison of IEP/504 accommodations under classroom and standardized testing conditions: A preliminary report from SEELS data (Synthesis Report 63). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.

Bourque, L.B., & Fielder, E. p. (1995). How to conduct self-administered and mail surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Browne, J. (2003). Derailed: The schoolhouse to jailhouse track. Advancement Project. Washington, DC.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001). Employment experience of youths: Results from the first three years of a longitudinal survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Coffey, O.D. & Gemignani, M.G. (1994). Effective practices in juvenile correctional education: A study of the literature and research, 1980-1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. The National Office for Social Responsibility.

Cortiella, C. (2007). Rewards & roadblocks: How special education students are faring under No Child Left Behind. National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Crawford, L., & Tindal, G. (2006). Policy and practice: Knowledge and beliefs of education professionals related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in a state assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 208-217.

Donovan, S.A., & Nickerson, A.B. (2007). Strength-based traditional social emotional reports: Impact on multidisciplinary team members perceptions. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 228-237.

Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook. (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gagnon, J.C., Barber, B.R., Van Loan, C.L., & Leone, P.E. (2009). Juvenile correctional schools: Characteristics and approaches to curriculum. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 673-696.

Gagnon, J.C., Maccini, P., & Haydon, T. (2009). Secondary day treatment and residential schools: Assessment and accountability policies and practices. Unpublished manuscript.

Gagnon, J.C., & McLaughlin, M.J. (2004). Curriculum, assessment, and accountability in day treatment and residential schools. Exceptional Children, 70, 263-283.

Gates, S.M., Ringel, J.S., Santianez, L., Ross, K.E., & Chung, C.H. (2003). Who is leading our schools? Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Goetz, J.P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Heberlein, T.A., and Baumgartner, R. (1978). Factors affecting response rates to mailed questionnaires: a quantitative analysis of the published literature. American Sociological Review, 43, 447-462.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2658 (2004).

Katsiyannis, A., & Archwamety, T. (1999). Academic remediation/achievement and other factors related to recidivism rates among delinquent youth. Behavioral Disorder, 24, 93-101.

Kohl, F.L., McLaughlin, M.J., & Nagle, K. (2006). Alternate achievement standards and assessments: A descriptive investigation of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73, 107-123.

Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Lail, K.E., Eisenbraun, K.D., & Kato, K. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.

Leone, P.E. (1994). Education services for youth with disabilities in a state-operated juvenile correctional system: Case study and analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 43-58.

Leone, P.E., & Cutting, C.A. (2004). Appropriate education, juvenile corrections, and No Child Left Behind. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 260-265.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Litwin, M.S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing.

Malmgren, K.W., McLaughlin, M.J., & Nolet, V. (2005). Accounting for the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 86-96.

Nagle, K., Yunker, C., & Malmgren, K.W. (2006). Students with disabilities and accountability reform: Challenges identified at the state and local levels. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 17(1), 28-39.

National Center on Educational Outcomes. (n. d.). Special topics area: Participation of students with disabilities. Retrieved February 13, 2008 from http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/topicareas/standards/standardsfaq.htm

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Quinn, M.M., Rutherford, R.B., Leone, P.E., Osher, D.M., & Poirier, J.M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339-345.

Shriner, J.G., & Destafano, L. (2003). Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 69, 147-161.

Shriner, J.G., & Ganguly, R. (2007). Assessment and accommodation issues under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 32, 231-243.

Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Altman, J.R. (2005). 2005 state special education outcomes: Five years into the decade means many changes. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., & Johnson, D.R. (2000). High-stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 305-314.

Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Morse, A.B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 232-240.

Thurlow, M.L., Thompson, S.J., & Lazarus, S.S. (2006). Considerations in the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more. In S.M. Downing and T.M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Title 1-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEIA), 34 C.F.R.72, [section] 200-30 (2007).

U.S. Department of Labor. (2003). Educational Resources: So you are thinking about dropping out of school? Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 14, 2005 from http://www.dol.gov/asp/fibre/dropout.htm

VanGetson, G.R., & Thurlow, M.L., (2007). Nearing the target in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2004-2005 assessment results (Technical Report 46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.

Wei Wei, C. (2003). Reducing error in mail surveys. Practical Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 8(18) 1-5. Retrieved January 2, 2006 form http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=18

Weisberg, H.F., Krosnick, J.A., & Bowen, B.D. (1989). An introduction to survey research and data analysis (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Yell, M.L., Shriner, J.G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEIA Regulation of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(1), 1-24.

Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., & Nelson, R. (2004). Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.

Zeninsky, A.L., & Sireci, S.G. (2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006 (Technical Report 47). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.

Joseph C. Gagnon, Ph.D.

Todd Haydon, LCSW, Ph.D.

Paula Maccini, Ph.D.

Biographical Sketch

JOSEPH GAGNON's is an Assistant Professor in the Special Education Department at the University of Florida. Dr. Gagnon's research includes a focus on curriculum, assessment, and accountability policies and practices in juvenile corrections schools for committed youth, as well as day treatment and residential psychiatric schools.

This research was funded by Grant #H324C030043 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)
COPYRIGHT 2010 Correctional Educational Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gagnon, Joseph C.; Haydon, Todd; Maccini, Paula
Publication:Journal of Correctional Education
Date:Mar 1, 2010
Words:8458
Previous Article:Andragogical methods and readiness for the correctional GED classroom.
Next Article:Offender perceptions on the value of employment.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters