Making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.

Educational responsibilities to students with disabilities (SWD) in the US have changed continually over the last half century, especially guided through EAHCA, IDEA and NCLB. NCLB waivers were introduced in 2011 and, as one component, required states to develop evaluation systems for educators. In...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20209712
id ndltd-NEU--neu-cj82n329f
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-NEU--neu-cj82n329f2021-05-27T05:11:10ZMaking sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.Educational responsibilities to students with disabilities (SWD) in the US have changed continually over the last half century, especially guided through EAHCA, IDEA and NCLB. NCLB waivers were introduced in 2011 and, as one component, required states to develop evaluation systems for educators. In Massachusetts, the new educator evaluation system has two ratings for educators. One of those ratings requires development of District Determined Measures (DDMs) which measure trends and patterns of growth and learning for all students over time with a primary focus on content. For SWD, this required a shift in accountability from IEP compliance and participation in state curriculum and testing to development of growth measures. This descriptive case study looked at how one MA Collaborative public day school was making sense of this mandate of DDMs for SWD. Findings suggest that for students with significant disabilities, measuring growth must be examined beyond just the standard state testing. Many variables impact SWD's learning and growth. Barriers to learning such as health issues, behavioral and emotional challenges, as well as significant cognitive and communication issues must be included in measuring progress. Special education teachers cannot only be held accountable for state testing scores, but must develop effective ways to measure progress related to the individual student needs. Suggestions for future research include consideration for more effective ways to measure the indirect measures (information on learning) for SWD rather than a priority focus on the direct (content related) measures. In addition, more research is needed to gather information related to measuring growth for specific disability type. Administrators will need support and training in ways to effectively evaluate special educators' impact on learning for those working with students with the most significant special needs.http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20209712
collection NDLTD
sources NDLTD
description Educational responsibilities to students with disabilities (SWD) in the US have changed continually over the last half century, especially guided through EAHCA, IDEA and NCLB. NCLB waivers were introduced in 2011 and, as one component, required states to develop evaluation systems for educators. In Massachusetts, the new educator evaluation system has two ratings for educators. One of those ratings requires development of District Determined Measures (DDMs) which measure trends and patterns of growth and learning for all students over time with a primary focus on content. For SWD, this required a shift in accountability from IEP compliance and participation in state curriculum and testing to development of growth measures. This descriptive case study looked at how one MA Collaborative public day school was making sense of this mandate of DDMs for SWD. Findings suggest that for students with significant disabilities, measuring growth must be examined beyond just the standard state testing. Many variables impact SWD's learning and growth. Barriers to learning such as health issues, behavioral and emotional challenges, as well as significant cognitive and communication issues must be included in measuring progress. Special education teachers cannot only be held accountable for state testing scores, but must develop effective ways to measure progress related to the individual student needs. Suggestions for future research include consideration for more effective ways to measure the indirect measures (information on learning) for SWD rather than a priority focus on the direct (content related) measures. In addition, more research is needed to gather information related to measuring growth for specific disability type. Administrators will need support and training in ways to effectively evaluate special educators' impact on learning for those working with students with the most significant special needs.
title Making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.
spellingShingle Making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.
title_short Making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.
title_full Making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.
title_fullStr Making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.
title_full_unstemmed Making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.
title_sort making sense of the mandate for district-determined measures for students with disabilities: a descriptive single case study.
publishDate
url http://hdl.handle.net/2047/D20209712
_version_ 1719407117709869056