University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to special education

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to special education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 1
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS
AS IT RELATES TO SPECIAL EDUCATION

by

Robert Justin Sherrill

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Robert Justin Sherrill

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my beautiful wife, Christina, and my beautiful daughter,
Addison, whose love and support throughout the years has made this possible. I also dedicate
this dissertation to my Mom and Dad. Thank you all for your patience, support, and
understanding as I have worked toward this goal. I love you all very much.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Dr. Larry Picus for serving as the
chair of my dissertation committee. I would also like to thank Dr. Rudy Crew and Dr. Mike
Seelig for serving on my dissertation committee and for sacrificing their personal time to read
my dissertation and offer professional expertise.
I would also like to thank Dr. Jiménez y West for her support and encouragement
throughout this experience. Her direction during the writing sessions helped me focus on the
ultimate goal.
To the members of my cohort and dissertation group, Fight On!
Finally, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my parents for instilling in me
the value of education and the importance of working hard to accomplish my goals.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

LIST OF TABLES 6

LIST OF FIGURES 7

CHAPTER 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 8
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 18
Importance of the Study 19
Summary of Methodology 20
Limitations 21
Delimitations 22
Assumptions 22
Definitions and Terms 22
Organization of the Dissertation 25

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW 27
Oregon School Reform 28
Special Education Reform 34
Special Education Accountability 40

CHAPTER 3 – METHODS 47
Purposeful Sample and Population 49
Instrumentation 49
Data Collection 50
Data Analysis 50
Summary 51

CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS 52
Introduction 52
Demographics and Characteristics 52
Interview Data 65
Findings by Research Question 66
Conclusion 70

CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION 73
Background/Overview of the Study 73
Summary of Findings 74
Limitations 76
Recommendations for Further Research 77
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 5
Conclusions 78

REFERENCES 81

APPENDICIES

APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 87

APPENDIX B – INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY 88

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 6
LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: 2012-2013 Ethnic makeup for Cardinal SD and Gold SD 53
Table 4.2: District and State of Oregon Special Education Population 54
Table 4.3: Table 4.3: SPR&I Indicator Measurement Table 56
Table 4.4: 2012-2013 Percent of Students in Grades 3-7 Meeting or Exceeding 63
Standards in Reading and Math.
Table 4.5: 2012–2013 Graduation, Completion and Dropout Rates for SWD 64

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 7
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: 2011-12 School Age Students with Disabilities Receiving SPED Services 11
Figure 2.1: 2002-2012 – Number of Oregon SPED Students 43

Figure 2.2: 2011-2012 Graduation Rates for SWD 44

Figure 2.3: 2010-2012 – Oregon Student Group Dropout Rates 45

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 8
CHAPTER 1 - OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Student achievement and accountability are important issues in education today. Schools
and districts across the United States are constantly looking for ways to improve education and
the state of Oregon is no exception. In order to improve education, it is imperative to establish a
clear and concise direction in which to go. Education reform is the process of improving public
education and may be guided by individuals or organizations through a variety of strategies and
principles (Simpson, 2004). The practice of education reform is significant as it can affect all
students in terms of their education and opportunities. Although education reform has taken on
many forms and directions over the years, educators continue to explore what is the best method.
When looking at education reform, Fullan (2000) noted that it takes about three years to
achieve successful change in student performance in an elementary school. Depending on size, it
takes about six years to do so in a secondary school. Fullan (2000) noted two serious concerns
with this finding. First, the successes that do occur, occur in only a small number of schools;
that is, these reform efforts have not gone to scale and been widely reproduced. Second, and
equally problematic, there is no guarantee that the initial success will last. Put in terms of the
change process, there has been strong adoption and implementation, but not strong
institutionalization (Fullan, 2000).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was signed by President George W. Bush
on January 8, 2002. NCLB is a United States Act of Congress that is a reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that was originally signed by President
Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 as part of his “War on Poverty”. The passage of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA)
Amendments gave a big push for education reform. Both the ESEA and NCLB ushered in eras
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 9
of accountability. The goal of NCLB is to hold school systems accountable and to improve the
quality of education for all students and to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged/
minority students and their peers by the 2013-2014 school years (U.S. Department of Education,
2012).
NCLB uses standards-based testing to set high standards and measurable goals for all
students. In order for states to receive federal school funding they are required to develop
assessments in basic skills and must give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.
NCLB does not assert national achievement standards as the standards are set by each individual
state. NCLB's provisions represent a significant change in the federal government's influence on
public schools and districts throughout the United States, with a strong focus on assessment,
accountability, and teacher quality. According to the U.S. Department of Education and the
NCLB Act, 100% of students are expected to perform at a proficient level in English language
arts and mathematics by the spring of 2014. Proficient is defined as the mastery or ability to do
something at grade-level (Edsource.org).
Background of the Problem
The issue of educational accountability is not a new one, in 1989, Darling-Hammond
stated that the issue of educational accountability is probably the most pressing and most
problematic of any facing the public schools today. NCLB also holds schools and local
education agencies (LEA) accountable for increasing student achievement for all students,
including minorities, English learners, students who are socio-economically disadvantaged, and
students receiving special education services (EdSource, 2010). Students receiving special
education services are often referred to as students with disabilities (SWD) and services may be
provided through a variety of methods ranging from separate class for academic instruction,
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 10
counseling, speech services, adapted physical education as well as occupational and physical
therapies. A child is eligible for special education if parents and professionals determine the
child has a disability.
In Oregon, a student may qualify for special education services by having at least one of
the eleven different disabilities listed for school age students in the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. The disabilities include: Autism, Deaf/Blindness, Emotional
Disturbance, Hearing Impairment/Deaf, Intellectual Disability, Other Health Impairment,
Orthopedic Impairment, Specific Learning Disability, Visual Impairment, Communication
Disorder, and Traumatic Brain Injury (Oregon Statewide Report Card, 2011-2012).
Over time, several disability categories have shown an increase in the number of
identified students. These changing percentages reflect trends in the field and require that the
Department of Education, Office of Student Learning and Partnerships keep up with the ever-
changing needs of Oregon’s children (Oregon Statewide Report Card, 2011-2012).

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 11
Figure 1.1: 2011-2012 School Age Students with Disabilities Receiving SPED Services

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 12
Although there have been some successes in terms of accountability and student
achievement, the achievement gap continues to grow as schools struggle to meet the demands
and constantly changing benchmarks of NCLB (EdSource, 2010). In 2009, President Barack
Obama announced the Race to the Top (RTTT) initiative which offered bold incentives to states
willing to spur systemic reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools
(whitehouse.gov, 2013). One of the states to take advantage of this initiative is Oregon. Oregon
has started in a new direction to improve its schools and an important component of that is
holding schools accountable for the improvement of student performance for all students.
A reoccurring challenge in public education is determining where the accountability for
public schools should be placed. Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) state that accountability at
its core is a “contractual” relationship between two parties: a) the “provider” of a good or
service, and b) the “director” with the power to reward, punish or replace the provider. The
relationship between provider and director has the ability to negatively or positively influence
the success of an organization. Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) also note that the relationships
begin at the federal level and continue to be passed down throughout the process. Congress
delegates to the U.S. Department of Education (U.S. DOE), the U.S. DOE then delegates to the
states, the states delegate to the school districts, the school districts delegate to the schools,
which in turn lands on the principals and finally ends up on the teachers. In each relationship,
stakeholders play both a director and provider role throughout the process.
School districts nationwide have used high-stakes testing for years, but that same testing
now carries much more weight in terms of school accountability. Weiss (2010) noted that in
many states, standards-based reform has laid the groundwork for a strong academic
infrastructure that describes what students should know and be able to do at each level and in
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 13
each subject. And although this infrastructure is difficult to implement, some schools are able to
do so more successfully than others. This level of accountability has a direct effect on student
learning.
Determining how to improve student performance in America’s public schools continues
to be one of the main objectives across the country and there has been no shortage of proposed
solutions: Find great principals and give them power; create competitive markets with charters,
vouchers, and choice; establish small schools to ensure that students receive sufficient attention –
the list goes on (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). Childress, Elmore, & Grossman (2006)
noted that achieving excellence on a broad scale requires a district wide strategy for improving
instruction in the classroom as well as having an organization that can implement it. Childress,
Elmore, & Grossman’s 2006 article, How to Manage Urban School Districts, discussed the
importance that school districts play in student achievement. The debate continues on whether
or not school districts should have complete control, and as school-based solutions prove to be
important, they are not enough when it comes to achieving excellence at every school within a
district.
Wagner (2007) stated that too often in education, we start with answers before we have
understood the problem we’re trying to solve. Oregon has taken steps toward improving its
education system and in the spring of 2011, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 909 (SB
909) which created the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) – an initiative and priority
of Governor John Kitzhaber. The OEIB, chaired by the Governor, was tasked with overseeing
the Governor’s vision for education transformation in an effort to create a seamless, unified
system for investing in and delivering public education from early childhood through high school
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 14
and college so that all Oregonians are well prepared for careers in our global economy (OEIB,
2012).
The key strategies identified by the OEIB were to create a coordinated public education
system, focus state investment on achieving student outcomes, and build statewide support
systems. SB 909 also outlined the development of an education investment system and in 2012
Dr. Rudy Crew, a nationally recognized educator, was hired as the Chief Education Officer
(CEO) to lead Oregon through these reforms. In addition to taking steps towards improving their
education system, the State of Oregon set ambitious goals for educational attainment. Also
approved by the Oregon Legislature in 2011 were Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) and the target goal
known as the “40-40-20” goal. This goal states that 40% of adult Oregonians will have earned a
bachelor’s degree or higher, that 40% will have earned an associate’s degree or a meaningful
postsecondary certificate, and that the remaining 20% or less of all adult Oregonians will have
earned a high school diploma or equivalent by the year 2025 (OEIB, 2012). During a meeting
with Dr. Crew, he noted that the OEIB is focused on four major investments that will help
Oregon reach the 40/40/20 goal. The investments include: 1) an emphasis on early learning,
specifically in reading comprehension. 2) An opportunity for high school students to earn
college credit. 3) Improved teacher training/recruitment program. 4) A concentration on
science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education.
An important component of the RTTT initiative was a provision that allowed states the
opportunity to seek a waiver from NCLB compliance if the state demonstrated an action plan to
address the achievement gap through accountability and high standards (ed.gov, 2012). Oregon,
along with many other states, applied for a waiver from NCLB compliance. Part of the waiver
application relied on K-12 achievement compacts to replace NCLB’s system of measurements
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 15
and sanctions with a new, Oregon-designed accountability model (Oregon.gov, 2012). Oregon
received the waiver and in 2012, Governor Kitzhaber signed into law Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581)
which required every K-12 school district, education service district, community college, and
public university in Oregon to enter into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning
with the 2012-2013 school year. Due to the limited amount of time, the Oregon Education
Association (OEA) requested that the achievement compacts not begin until the 2013-2014
school year (OEIB, 2012). The achievement compacts served as two-way partnership
agreements that challenged educators across Oregon to set targets on key student outcomes
and encourage broad collaboration to adopt transformational practices, policies and budgets to
help students achieve the educational outcomes valued by Oregonians. The achievement
compacts would:
 Define key measurements and set goals for student progress, with two-way accountability
in setting and achieving those goals.
 Help Oregon achieve its high school and college completion goals of 40/40/20, by
measuring progress and uniting educational institutions around those goals.
 Allow comparisons of outcomes among educational institutions – spotlighting best
practices to share and expand, and allowing diagnosis and intervention to overcome
obstacles.
 Encourage local boards and educational leaders to connect their budgets and
improvement plans to shared goals of high school and college completion and career
readiness.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 16
 Help state and local leaders determine how much progress they can make with the best
use of state and local funds – and how they might invest funds in ways that deliver better
results for students.
 Provide parents and students with clear information about how educational entities are
performing, allowing comparisons based on the most significant outcomes.
 Allow Oregon to replace provisions of No Child Left Behind with a more supportive and
flexible state K-12 accountability system.
Rural areas and remote schools –
What defines an area or a town as rural has been frequently debated (National
Agricultural Library, 2006). The U.S. Census Bureau defines rural as an area "outside urbanized
areas, in open country or in communities with less than 2,500 inhabitants or where the
population density is less than 1,000 inhabitants per square mile" (census.gov). Of the nation's
school districts, 40% are in rural areas (Johnson & Strange, 2007). One fourth of America's
school children attend public schools in rural areas or towns less than 25,000 and 14% go to
school in towns fewer than 2,500 people (Beeson & Strange, 2000).
Even though 40% of the nation’s school districts are in rural areas, rural issues and
innovations are largely underrepresented in the national education dialogue (Johnson & Strange,
2007). Rural areas face issues as pressing as urban areas, have as much diversity, and have 17%
more poverty (Beeson & Strange, 2000). Researchers have pointed out gaps and shortcomings in
rural research (Arnold, 2005). Sherwood (2000) noted that rural education research has been
misunderstood and underfunded.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 17
The following are general characteristics of rural communities:
Economic - A higher proportion of low-benefit, low wage jobs than in urban
areas is common (Herzog & Pittman, 1995). Median family income in rural areas
is about three fourths that of metropolitan areas. Poverty rates are higher.
Geographic - Isolation from urban or suburban areas is typical (Miller, 1993).
Educational - Rural residents generally achieve lower levels of formal education
than urban residents (Bauch, 2001).
Social - Rural residents strongly identify with their place. A smallness of scale
supports connections and relationships and contributes to a strong sense of
community spirit. Traditional values include discipline, hard work, and
importance of family and care for neighbors, connections to nature, and a sense of
safety (Miller, 1995).
While there may be challenges to living in rural areas, Herzog & Pittman (1995) note the
many rural strengths that include: a strong sense of community cohesiveness and community
spirit, a slower pace of life, a greater sense of safety, natural beauty, access to local agricultural
products, a generally quieter and cleaner environment, a lower cost of living, and remnants of
craft skills and knowledge (Theobald & Nachtigal, 1995). Understanding and building on these
strengths is important to rural education initiatives.
One particular challenge that many rural and remote schools face is servicing their
special education population. This particular challenge applies to schools in rural Oregon and is
often due to a lack of funding and resources. When this occurs, districts may outsource their
special education students to the larger school districts. This study will help identify how the
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 18
outsourcing of special education from the small schools may impact effective teaching in the
larger districts.
Statement of the Problem
Since the focus of the achievement compacts is to measure student progress for all
students, including the subgroups of students who historically have not been well served by
Oregon’s public education system, the problem defined is how special education fits into the
achievement compacts and what role the special education administrators have in the
development and implementation of the achievement compacts.
In a report to the federal government to show how it is complying with the Individuals
with Disabilities Act (IDEA), it was noted that the number of Oregon students in special
education has increased for the 12th consecutive year. Statistics released by the state
Department of Education show that more than 85,000 students are in special education programs
— 13.3% of the overall student population. That is an increase of 735 students from last year
and nearly 3,500 since 2008-09 (Edweek.org, 2013). As the number of students qualifying for
special education services continues to increase, educators must ensure that the achievement
compacts meet the needs of special education students. Successful implementation of these
compacts will up to the district and school leaders.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to: 1) determine if Oregon’s achievement compacts measure
accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern Oregon; and 2) determine
how special education programs are being restructured to meet these goals. The intent of the
study is to examine whether or not the achievement compacts will improve academic
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 19
achievement for students with disabilities. A focus will be on identifying how progress for this
group will be measured and monitored.
Research Questions

The research questions that will be addressed in this study are:
1. What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system using to
measure accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern
Oregon?
2. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach
achievement compact goals?
Importance of the Study

NCLB has increased accountability which requires Local Education Agencies and
schools to demonstrate continual increases in student achievement for all students. As
educational leaders are faced with this task, a study of the development and implementation of
the achievement compacts is timely and appropriate as it is important to understand how schools
are supporting students receiving special education services as well as identifying the best
instructional practices being implemented in the classroom.
The results of the study will provide important information on the continued
implementation of the Achievement Compacts for SWD. Oregon is committed to the
improvement and development of its education system and with the support of the OEIB, all
school districts will be provided with the resources needed to succeed. The data gathered will
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 20
help identify accountability, leadership, and best practices in relation to the achievement
compacts.
Summary of Methodology
This study will provide a detailed analysis of special education accountability measures
and program reform. Using Oregon’s Department of Education Data Book (2007), a purposeful
sample of two school districts within the eastern region of Oregon was selected to participate in
this study. The selection of the sample in this study was determined by the researcher in
coordination with his doctoral committee. The parameters for the selection of the sample consist
of the following:
 Rural public schools.
 K-12 districts in Oregon.
 Special education administrators in Oregon public schools.
The districts were selected based on the number of students served and all have similar
demographics. Case studies will be conducted with the directors of special education of each
site. The school districts identified are: Cardinal School District and Gold School District.
The Oregon Association of Education Service Districts -
The Oregon Association of Education Service Districts is a non-profit organization
dedicated to support every school district in Oregon in their mission to help every child to
succeed. OAESD has 17 member Education Service Districts. Each has its own Board of
Directors, a superintendent and a staff dedicated to providing high quality, low cost programs
and services to the school districts in their region (oaesd.org).
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 21
Interviews will be conducted with the directors of special education of each district.
Since this is a qualitative study, interviews will be used as the primary source of information.
Achievement compacts and mission and vision statements will also be used to identify the goals
and objectives of each district. Phone interviews will be used to clarify any missing or
incomplete information.
The collected information will be used to create a detailed case study of each district that
describes how each district implements the achievement compacts as well as how each district
uses the compacts to support students with disabilities in terms of student achievement.
Comparisons will be made to identify the differences and similarities of the districts. In
incidences where special education is not identified as a part of the achievement compacts, the
study will look at how being a destination or rallying point for special education from the smaller
districts and schools impacts effective teaching.
Limitations
The following limitations are present in the study:
 Data collected from the region of this study, may not be generalizable to other
regions and study populations, due to different student demographics.
 Data collection was based upon a structured and semi-structured interview
process, with the possibility that the results may be subjective.
 The information gathered from the interviews was derived from the perceptions of
the limited number of staff members interviewed and they may not have
constituted a representative sample of all other staff.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 22
Delimitations
The following delimitations are present in the study:
 The staff selected for this study was restricted to those in a specific region of
Oregon.
 The study focused on the development of the Achievement Compact as it relates
to students with disabilities within a specific region of Oregon.
 The interviews conducted for this study were done with the directors of special
education only.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study:
 The staff members interviewed for this study were conscientious and honest in
their response to the interview questions.
 All school documents, data and goals were assumed to be complete, accurate, and
reflective of how goals were measured and progress was monitored.
 The methodology chosen for this study are appropriate for the subject of the
study.
Definition of Terms
 40/40/20 goal: Established by Oregon Senate Bill 253, it states that by 2025, 40 percent
of adult Oregonians have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, that 40 percent have
earned an associate’s degree or post-secondary credential, and that the remaining 20
percent or less have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent (OEIB, 2011).
 Achievement compact: designed to set targets for defined outcome measures that are
indicators of student success. The compacts are intended to connect a district’s plan for
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 23
student achievement to the allocation of resources needed to accomplish its plan (OEIB,
2012).
 Disadvantaged students: referenced in Oregon Senate Bill 1581, are defined in OEIB
rule, consistent with federal law, to include K-12 students who are:
- Socioeconomically disadvantaged students;
- Limited English proficient students;
- Students with disabilities;
- Black students (not of Hispanic origin)
- Hispanic/Latino students
- American Indian or Alaska Native students; and
- Pacific Islander students (OEIB, 2012).

 English Language Learner: Indicates a person who has a first language other than
English and is in the process of learning English.
 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): Mandated by IDEA 2004, students with
disabilities should be included in the general education environment to the maximum
extent possible and should only be removed after all supports have been exhausted.
(EdSource, 2010).
 No Child Left Behind (NCLB): NCLB is the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and increased the federal government’s focus on
assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. It also holds schools and education
entities accountable for increasing student achievement for all students including
minorities, English learners, students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and
students with disabilities (EdSource, 2010).
 The Oregon Association of Education Service Districts (OAESD): The Oregon
Association of Education Service Districts is a non-profit organization dedicated to
support every school district in Oregon in their mission to help every child to succeed.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 24
OAESD has 17 member Education Service Districts. The ESD was established to
provide a supporting infrastructure to local school districts and their purpose is to respond
to needs identified by their local component school districts and generate services and
programs to meet those needs, assuring that all students have educational opportunities
which prepare them for the 21st Century. The mission of the ESD is to assist their school
districts and communities in achieving Oregon's educational goals by producing
equitable, high quality, cost-effective and locally responsive educational services on a
regional level for all children P-20. Each ESD has its own Board of Directors, a
superintendent and a staff dedicated to providing high quality, low cost programs and
services to the school districts in their region (oaesd.org).
 Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB): The Oregon Education Investment Board,
chaired by the Governor of Oregon, is overseeing an effort to create a seamless, unified
system for investing in and delivering public education from early childhood through
high school and college so that all Oregonians are well prepared for careers in the Oregon
economy (Oregon.gov, 2013).
 Race to the Top (RTTT): This initiative offers bold incentives to states willing to spur
systemic reform to improve teaching and learning in America’s schools. Race to the Top
has ushered in significant change in our education system, particularly in raising
standards and aligning policies and structures to the goal of college and career readiness.
Race to the Top has helped drive states nationwide to pursue higher standards, improve
teacher effectiveness, use data effectively in the classroom, and adopt new strategies to
help struggling schools (whitehouse.gov, 2013).
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 25
 Senate Bill 253 (SB 253): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 253 established
the 40/40/20 goal to be completed by 2025.
 Senate Bill 909 (SB 909): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011, SB 909 called for
the creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) “for the purpose of
ensuring that all public school students in Oregon reach the education outcomes
established for Oregon.” SB 909 directed the OEIB to oversee a unified public education
system from early childhood through post-secondary education (P-20).
 Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581): Passed by the Oregon legislature in 2012, SB 1581 contains
two key recommendations of the OEIB related to the SB 253 and SB 909: 1) Authorizes
the Chief Education Officer to direct other state education officials in the design and
organization of the state’s unified public education; and 2) requires that all of Oregon’s
education entities enter into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with
the 2012-13 school year.
 Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED): A student whose parents never received a high
school diploma, lives in poverty, or is eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch
program, also known as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (ed.gov, 2013).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter I of the study presented the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of
the study, research questions, importance of the study, summary of the methodology used,
limitations, delimitations, assumptions, definition of terms, and the organization of the
dissertation.
Chapter II of the study presents a review of the literature in the following areas: Oregon
school reform, the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB), and special education reform.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 26
Chapter III of the study presents the research methodology used, the data collection
process, and the methods used to perform the data analyses.
Chapter IV reports the findings from the study including a summary of the sample
schools’ characteristics and performance, the role of the special education administrator in
creating achievement compacts, and the resources and professional development that the special
education administrators will be providing to their staff.
Chapter V provides a summary of the study, research conclusions, and implications from
the study.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 27
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to the Oregon Education
Investment Board’s initiative known as the Achievement Compacts. The chapter has been
divided into three sections:
1. Oregon’s history of school reform – an overview of Oregon’s attempts at school reform
with an emphasis on four major events: A) the approval of Measure 5 in 1990, B) the
passage of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century in 1991, C) the Oregon
Quality Education Model (OQEM) in 1999, and D) the passage of Oregon Senate Bills
909, 253, and 1581, and the development of the Oregon Education Investment Board.
2. Special Education Reform - The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA
or EHA) was enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by President
Gerald Ford in 1975. PL 94-142 was the first major law to guarantee the right to public
education for all handicapped children, ages five to 21, and required all public schools
accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical
and mental disabilities.
3. Special Education Accountability - The reauthorization of IDEA made it a federal
mandate to include achievement scores of students with disabilities in regular statewide
assessment systems. Current emphasis on special education achievement accountability
continues to have a significant impact on schools nationwide. Reasons for involving
SWD in the educational accountability systems include: provides an accurate picture of
education, provides for students with disabilities to benefit from reforms, makes accurate
comparisons, avoids unintended consequences of exclusion, meets legal requirements,
and promotes high expectations.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 28
Oregon School Reform
Oregon has always had a focus on improving its educational system. And although
school reform was addressed prior to 1990, the four most significant events that have changed
the Oregon education system over the past two decades have been: 1) the approval of Measure 5
in 1990, 2) the passage of The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century in 1991, 3) the
Oregon Quality Education Model in 1999, and 4) the ratification of Oregon Senate Bills 253,
909, and 1581.
Measure 5 -
Measure 5 is often seen as the beginning of the Oregon tax revolt with one of the main
affects being that funding for local schools was shifted from primarily local property tax funds to
state funds. Measure 5 passed by one percent of the vote and Figlio (1998) noted that the
principal reason people voted for property tax limitations was to decrease their tax burden
without diminishing service levels.
Measure 5 was intended to cap the local property tax rate and equalize funding between
high-property value and low-property-value districts. This cap on the local property tax rates put
the responsibility on the state to make up for the lost revenue. At the time, local taxes provided
approximately 70% of school funding and state revenue approximately 30%. The measure’s
effect over the ensuing 7 years was to reverse this ratio (Conley & Picus, 2003).
The most immediate change that resulted from this new state responsibility was
legislation in 1991 to equalize funding among Oregon districts. Per pupil funding from district
to district differed dramatically at the time because districts were heavily dependent on local
property tax rates. Measure 5 capped the local property tax rate at $5 per $1,000 of assessed
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 29
valuation. Once Measure 5 was fully implemented, districts received anywhere from 5% to 90%
of their funding from the state, based on how much money was raised locally. In essence, the
state equalized funding between high-property value and low-property-value districts.
Equalization was implemented over a 7-year period by holding high-spending districts in place,
increasing per pupil funding for low-spending districts, unifying separate elementary and
secondary districts, and consolidating small districts (Conley & Picus, 2003).

The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century -
In 1991, Oregon embarked on a journey toward a fundamentally different kind of K-12
education. The legislature adopted The Oregon Educational Act for the 21st Century, also
known as The Education Act. As student expectations were constantly shifting and attendance
was being used as a primary measure of success, Oregon decided to go in a new direction where
students demonstrated competence against clear standards and engaged in contextual learning
and real-world experiences that connected classroom activities with community and work-based
learning. Part of the focus was to help students gain more of the skills they needed to navigate
the complex demands of modern life, including problem solving, critical thinking, teamwork and
effective communication (Oregon Business Council, 2000).
The goal was to create a public education system that resulted in “measurably the best
educated and prepared students in the nation by 2000 and equal to any in the world by 2010.”
During this time, the state achieved significant results and used a three-part assessment system
that measured what students knew and could do against defined, rigorous benchmarks for
learning. Compared with the traditional high school diploma, new certificates of mastery
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 30
provided evidence of student achievement measured against a yardstick that was much more
connected to the world graduates will face as young adults (Oregon Business Council, 2000).
The Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century established requirements for state
standards and assessments, along with certificates of initial and advanced mastery (CIM, CAM).
The legislation placed Oregon among the early adopters of state-level performance based
education systems. Although the law has undergone a long and tortured implementation that
included significant amendments in 1995, statewide academic content standards and a
sophisticated assessment system were largely in place by 1997. The assessment system would
eventually test English, math, and science statewide at Grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 (Conley & Picus,
2003).
Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM) -
To address the issue of state funding, Oregon developed the Oregon Quality Education
Model (OQEM) in 1999. This legislative session saw the first linkage of education reform
standards and school funding and was modeled after Governor John Kitzhaber’s health plan that
tied funding levels to levels of treatment available. The OQEM was the product of several
converging policy streams and the efforts of key state politicians with varying motives that
aligned at the right time to create bipartisan support for a new way to determine adequacy and to
create connections between funding and expected academic performance (Conley & Picus,
2003).
The Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM) developed a means to link the resources
provided to schools and the level of performance that could be expected of students (Oregon
Business Council, 2000). In 1997 the legislature authorized the Database Initiative Project (DBI)
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 31
which created the means to generate standardized fiscal data from school districts, allowing
comparisons between individual school buildings throughout the state. DBI mandated all
Oregon school districts to develop common definitions of educational expenditures, down to the
school level, and to collect and report financial data in a consistent fashion by district and by
school. The DBI also collects data on a range of educational practices, such as pupil-teacher
ratios and time devoted to instruction in various disciplines. This information is comparable
between and among schools and districts and is made available on a website where schools can
be compared on any element in the DBI (Conley & Picus, 2003).
Equalization of per-pupil funding was fully phased in, meaning each school had roughly
the same resources available to educate its students. For the first time, Oregon schools could
compare the performance of their students on the same measures and against the same standards,
could compare their expenditures to see how expenditure decisions related to learning results,
and had about the same amount of resources available to them per-pupil (Oregon Business
Council, 2000). The formula for the quality-education model states the basic prerequisite pieces
necessary for the OQEM to come into existence:
Quality education goals + Elements and components of prototype schools +
Quality indicators + Predicted performance = Quality Education model (Conley & Picus,
2003).
This ability to compare performance between schools and in relation to resource
allocation decisions opened the door for a new era in school improvement and accountability.
The Oregon Department of Education continued work on a new school accountability system,
and the 1999 legislature mandated the School Report Card, requiring that each school in the state
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 32
be "graded" and that the results be published and sent to parents and community members
(Oregon Business Council, 2000).
Although the OQEM does not create accountability for individual schools, it does create
accountability for the state school system. Conley & Picus (2003) go on to note that the major
lesson to be learned may be that it is going to be extremely difficult to connect state funding with
school-level learning outcomes in ways that allow continued discretion at the school level.
Senate Bill 253 -
While the OQEM helps with prioritizing the educational budget, it does not promise
adequate funding or performance. In 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber looked to build on the both
the Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century and the recommendations of the OQEM (OEIB,
2011). In doing so, Governor Kitzhaber recommended that the Oregon Legislature pass Senate
Bill 253 (SB 253) and Senate Bill 909 (SB 909). In 2012, the governor signed Senate Bill 1581
into law.
Senate Bill 253 (SB 253), also known as 40/40/20, established the 40/40/20 goal to be
completed by 2025. The goals states that by the year 2025, 40% of adult Oregonians will have
earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, that 40% will have earned an associate’s degree or a
meaningful postsecondary certificate, and that the remaining 20% or less of all adult Oregonians
will have earned a high school diploma or equivalent (OEIB, 2012).
Senate Bill 909 -
To assist with these goals, Senate Bill 909 was passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011.
SB 909 called for the creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) “for the
purpose of ensuring that all public school students in Oregon reach the education outcomes
established for Oregon” (OEIB, 2012). SB 909 directed the OEIB to oversee a unified public
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 33
education system from early childhood through post-secondary education (P-20). The OEIB,
chaired by the Governor, was tasked with overseeing the Governor’s vision for education
transformation in an effort to create a seamless, unified system for investing in and delivering
public education from early childhood through high school and college so that all Oregonians are
well prepared for careers in our global economy (OEIB, 2012). The OEIB was also responsible
for hiring a Chief Education Officer to oversee the system and in 2012, Dr. Rudy Crew, a
nationally recognized educator, was hired as the Chief Education Officer (CEO) to lead Oregon
through these reforms. According to Dr. Crew, the OEIB is focused on four major investments
that will help Oregon reach the 40/40/20 goal: 1) an emphasis on early learning, specifically in
reading comprehension. 2) An opportunity for high school students to earn college credit. 3)
Improved teacher training/recruitment program. 4) A concentration on science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) education.
Senate Bill 1581 -
Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581) was passed by the Oregon legislature in 2012 and contained
two key recommendations of the OEIB related to SB 253 and SB 909: 1) Authorizes the Chief
Education Officer to direct other state education officials in the design and organization of the
state’s unified public education; and 2) requires that all of Oregon’s education entities enter into
annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with the 2012-13 school year. The
achievement compacts served as two-way partnership agreements that challenged educators
across Oregon to set targets on key student outcomes and encourage broad collaboration to adopt
transformational practices, policies and budgets to help students achieve the educational
outcomes valued by Oregonians.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 34
Special Education Reform
In the 1950s and 1960s, family associations began forming and advocating for the rights
of children with disabilities. The Federal government responded by allocating funds to develop
ways in which to work with children with disabilities. Several pieces of legislation that
supported developing and implementing programs and services to meet the needs of the students
and their families were passed. Part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
that was originally passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, as part of his “War on
Poverty”, was a comprehensive plan readdressing the inequalities of the educational
opportunities for economically disadvantaged children. And while ESEA was not specifically
designed to assist disabled children, there were provisions of the law that aided
socioeconomically disadvantaged children who were disabled.
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA or EHA) was enacted by the
United States Congress and signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975. Prior to this, U.S.
public schools accommodated only 1 out of 5 children with disabilities (ED.gov). Also known
as Public Law 94-142 (PL 94-142), it was the first major law to guarantee the right to public
education for all handicapped children, ages five to 21, and required all public schools accepting
federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental
disabilities.
PL 94-142 was an amendment to the Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) and
Section 504, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and was passed in response to litigation that
challenged the exclusion of handicapped children in public school. Wolfe and Hassel (2001)
note that the history of special education in the United States is comprised with the elements of
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 35
sympathy, organizational culture, and fear of litigation. The purpose was to ensure that all
disabled children would be given equal educational access to a Free and Appropriate Education
(FAPE). Public schools were also required to evaluate handicapped children and create an
educational plan with parent input that would emulate as closely as possible the educational
experience of non-disabled students (ED.gov). Public Law 94-142 has been amended and
reauthorized several times since 1975 and in 1986, one of the amendments required states to
provide disability services starting from birth.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is about access and guarantees the civil
rights for the disabled in the context of federally funded institutions or any program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance. Act 504 is unique in that it applies to all people
throughout their lifetimes, not just the span of 3–21 years that covers their education. Section
504 provides that: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . .
shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance . . . (ED.gov).
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) enforces Section 504 in programs and activities
that receive funds from ED. Recipients of these funds include public school districts, institutions
of higher education, and other state and local education agencies. The Section 504 regulation
requires a school district to provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to each
qualified person with a disability who is in the school district’s jurisdiction, regardless of the
nature or severity of the person’s disability.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 36
Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) –
Stemming from the Education for all Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was enacted in its first form in 1997. IDEA is a
United States federal law that governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention,
special education, and related services to children with disabilities. IDEA addresses the
educational needs of children with disabilities from birth to age 18 or 21 in cases that involve 14
specified categories of disability such as Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and Emotional
Disturbance (ED). IDEA also provides directives on how to implement special education
services, qualifying procedures, and student rights.
The reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 added another layer of federal laws that mandates
accountability to the public school system for students with disabilities; it also authorized grants
for research, technology, and training. IDEA legislation overlaps with NCLB to include: Highly
Qualified Teachers, goals for students with disabilities and for all students with disabilities to
participate in state and district assessments, with accommodations as needed (ED.gov). Other
provisions of IDEA may include, but are not limited to: an Individualized Education Program,
the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), and a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
Individualized Education Programs (IEP) –
In the United States, IDEA requires public schools to develop an IEP for every student
with a disability who is found to meet the federal and state requirements for special education.
The IEP serves as the foundation of a student’s educational program and is written to meet the
needs of the student. The IEP should describe the student’s disability, how the student learns,
which additional services need to be provided and the frequency of those services, classroom and
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 37
testing accommodations, as well as learning goals and objectives. The IEP must also identify the
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for the student.
Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) –
The purpose of the LRE is to allow the student the maximum possible opportunity to
interact with non-disabled peers as well as to prevent unnecessary segregation of students with
disabilities. Students with disabilities must participate with nondisabled students in both
academic and nonacademic services, including meals, recess, and physical education, to the
maximum extent appropriate to their individual needs (ED.gov). The LRE could be placement in
a general education class, a special education class, or both. Separate schooling may only occur
when the nature or severity of the disability is such that instructional goals cannot be achieved in
the regular classroom setting. If needed, supplementary aids must also be provided for students
with disabilities. These supplements may include interpreters for students who are deaf, readers
for students who are blind and door-to-door transportation for students with mobility
impairments (ED.gov).
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) –
Another component of IDEA is FAPE. PL 94-142 ensured that all public schools should
provide all students with a free appropriate public education at public expense, without
additional charges to parents or students, and must be under public supervision, as well as
appropriate for the child’s needs. PL 94-142 also included the following points:
• Special education and the specific services tailored to meet the unique needs of students
with disabilities.
• The rights of the students and their parents are to be protected by the law, under the
Equal Protection Clause of the14th Amendment which states:
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 38
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. (USA.gov).
• Schools are required to find students with disabilities within their settings and refer
those students for service eligibility.
• Students with disabilities are required to have an individualized education plan.
• Students with disabilities should receive instruction in a least restrictive environment
along with nondisabled peers.
• Student must be assessed before being labeled with a disability.
• If a student is identified as having a disability, appropriate services for their disability
must be provided by the state.
• Students are entitled to a due process right of notice and consent.
• Students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate public education.
• Congress would fund up to 40% of excess costs of educating students with disabilities.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) –
NCLB was designed to address the inequities in public education and improve student
achievement. The passage of the NCLB (2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) are legislative initiatives established for accountability of academic success for all
students in public schools (ED.gov). NCLB became the reauthorization of ESEA to ensure
academic achievement for all students was aligned to curriculum standards, high quality
instruction, and assessments that are scientifically based practices (United States Department of
Education, 2013). NCLB includes incentives to reward schools showing progress for students
with disabilities and other measures to fix or provide students with alternative options than
schools not meeting the needs of the disabled population. The law is written so that the scores of
students with Individualized Education Plans and 504 plans are counted just as other students'
scores are counted (Harper, 2005).
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 39
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) –
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) appropriated significant
new funding for programs under Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA). Part B of the IDEA provides funds to state educational agencies (SEAs) and local
educational agencies (LEAs) to help them ensure that children with disabilities, including
children aged three through five, have access to a free appropriate public education to meet each
child's unique needs and prepare him or her for further education, employment, and independent
living. Part C of the IDEA provides funds to each state lead agency designated by the Governor
to implement statewide systems of coordinated, comprehensive, multidisciplinary interagency
programs and make early intervention services available to infants and toddlers with disabilities
and their families (ED.gov).
A brief summary of the timeline of the legislative history for education reform that had
an impact on students with disabilities:
 1965 – Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that was originally
passed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 as part of his “War on Poverty”.
 1975 - The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) became law.
 1990 – EAHCA was renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA).
 1997 - IDEA received significant amendments that authorized additional grants
for technology, disabled infants and toddlers, parent training, and professional
development.
 2001 - Reauthorization of ESEA, now known as No Child Left Behind.
 2004 - IDEA was amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004, now known as IDEIA. Several provisions aligned
IDEA with the NCLB Act of 2001.
 2009 – To help fund IDEA, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

The increased cost and accountability of special education in the United States has the
nation’s public education system estimated annual cost to educate students with disabilities at
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 40
$35-$60 billion each year. The wide range of estimated costs by the experts suggests that
accountability within special education is insufficient to provide effective student achievement
(Wolfe & Hassel, 2001). To meet the needs of our students with disabilities, it is important to
implement effective and financially responsible instruction in our schools; this will be the focus
of the study taking place in eastern Oregon.

Special Education Accountability
During the early 1990s, including students with disabilities in statewide assessments
emerged as a national issue. Although policymakers have increasingly emphasized
accountability for student performance, students with disabilities were often excluded (Roach et
al., 1997). This exclusion is of particular concern because if SWD were excluded from the
reported data, then they were also excluded from reform actions that result from data analyses
(Thurlow, et al., 1996). Thurlow (1996) states the following reasons for involving SWD in the
educational accountability systems:
 Provides an accurate picture of education.
 Provides for students with disabilities to benefit from reforms.
 Makes accurate comparisons.
 Avoids unintended consequences of exclusion.
 Meets legal requirements.
 Promotes high expectations.
While the reauthorization of IDEA made it a federal mandate to include achievement
scores of students with disabilities in regular statewide assessment systems, current emphasis on
special education achievement accountability continues to have a significant impact on schools
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 41
nationwide. Statewide assessment and accountability systems provide information for
instructional change and educational reform. SWD need to be a part of these systems so that
they are considered when changes need to be made. SWD also need to be a part of
accountability systems so that the systems are reliable and valid. If schools are allowed to
exclude certain individuals who are expected to yield low scores, then the accountability reports
may not be valid making comparisons likely to be untrustworthy (Thurlow, Elliott, et al., 1996).
Browder, et al. (2005) noted that schools undergoing reform commonly engage in two
program activities relative to special education: 1) Professional Development geared towards
improving knowledge and skill in academic content areas, scientifically-based research
interventions, and the use of data. 2) Curricular/Instructional Responses providing greater access
to the general curriculum, incorporating scientifically-based instruction procedures, and
conducting test preparation.
Addressing the accountability of student achievement of students with disabilities was
included as one of the purposes of the achievement compacts that stemmed from the Oregon
Legislature passing Senate Bill 1581. The purpose stated was to replace provisions of the No
Child Left Behind Act with a more supportive and flexible accountability system in K-12
districts. According to the 2011-2012 Oregon Statewide Report Card, the number of Oregon
students receiving special education services through the federal IDEA has averaged 13% of
total enrollment over the last five years.
Although school leaders were responsible for creating the compacts, successful
implementation will require the work of all stakeholders. Special education is not unique in its
requirement of effective leadership (Riester-Wood, 2004). However, special education creates a
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 42
unique organizational context of factors to be considered in the change process for change to be
effective (Locson, 2004). And with the passage of Senate Bills 253, 909, and 1581, Oregon is
taking a bold approach to effective education reform and accountability for students with
disabilities. Oregon’s goals are to close the achievement gap and promote an educated
population that can ensure economic stability (OEIB, 2012). This starts with student
achievement and the plan is based on accountability, best practices, and research-based
interventions that will require the collaboration of all stakeholders to accomplish the 40-40-20
goal.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 43
Figure 2.1: 2002-2012 – Number of Oregon SPED Students.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 44
Figure 2.2: 2011-2012 Graduation Rates for SWD
Graduation Rates for SWD: According to the Oregon Department of Education website, the
graduation rate for Students with Disabilities for 2011-2012 was 38%.
Student Group
2011-12
4 year
grad
rate(2008-
09 cohort)
2010-11
4 year
grad
rate(2007-
08 cohort)
2011-12
5 year
grad
rate(2007-
08 cohort)
2010-11
5 year
grad
rate(2006-
07 cohort)
2011-12
4 year
completer
rate
2011-12
2011-12
5 year
completer
rate
All Students 68.4% 67.6% 72.4% 70.9% 75.1% 80.5%
White 71% 70% 74% 74% 78% 83%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
79% 78% 82% 80% 81% 85%
Black 53% 54% 60% 57% 62% 71%
Hispanic 60% 58% 65% 62% 65% 71%
Native
American
51% 52% 56% 55% 60% 66%
Multi-Ethnic 69% 73% 77% 69% 76% 85%
Students with
Disabilities
38% 42% 47% 47% 55% 66%
English
Language
Learner
49% 52% 60% 58% 53% 64%
Economically
Disadvantaged
61% 61% 67% 65% 69% 77%
Females 73% 72% 76% 75% 79% 83%
Males 64% 63% 69% 67% 72% 78%

http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?id=8845&typeid=5

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 45
Dropout Rates
According to the Oregon Department of Education website, the dropout rate for Students
with Disabilities for 2011-2012 was 4.8%. This rate is calculated by looking at the number of
students who drop out (grades 9-12) in a given school year. This means that the dropout rate is
not the inverse of the graduation rate. Students, who receive GEDs, Modified Diplomas, etc., are
not considered either graduates or dropouts but are included in the four- and five-year completer
rates mentioned above.
Figure 2.3: 2010-2012 – Oregon Student Group Dropout Rates

Student Group 2011-12 2010-11
All Students 3.4% 3.3%
White 3.0% 2.8%
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.3% 1.4%
Black 5.9% 5.6%
Hispanic 4.5% 4.7%
Native American 7.7% 5.9%
Multi-Ethnic 3.3% 3.2%
Students with Disabilities 4.8% 4.3%
English Language Learner 5.1% 5.1%
Economically Disadvantaged 3.0% 2.7%
Females 2.8% 2.8%
Males 3.9% 3.7%

http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?id=8845&typeid=5

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 46
Summary
This review of literature has included an overview of Oregon’s efforts at K-12
educational reform, the roles, responsibilities, and efforts of the Oregon Education Investment
Board and a brief history of special education reform and special education accountability. The
purpose of the study is to: 1) determine if Oregon’s achievement compacts measure
accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern Oregon; and 2) determine
how special education programs are being restructured to meet these goals. The intent of the
study is to examine whether or not the achievement compacts will improve academic
achievement for students with disabilities. The following chapter will summarize the
methodology that will be used in conducting this study.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 47
CHAPTER 3 – METHODS
Introduction
In 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber looked to build on both the Oregon Educational Act
for the 21
st
Century and the recommendations of the OQEM (OEIB, 2011). In doing so,
Governor Kitzhaber recommended that the Oregon Legislature pass Senate Bill 253 (SB 253)
and Senate Bill 909 (SB 909).
SB 253 established the 40/40/20 goal that states: By the year 2025, 40% of adult
Oregonians will have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, that 40% will have earned an
associate’s degree or a meaningful postsecondary certificate, and that the remaining 20% or less
of all adult Oregonians will have earned a high school diploma or equivalent (OEIB, 2012).
SB 909 was passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011 and called for the creation of the
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) “for the purpose of ensuring that all public school
students in Oregon reach the education outcomes established for Oregon.” SB 909 directed the
OEIB to oversee a unified public education system from early childhood through post-secondary
education (P-20). The OEIB, chaired by the Governor, was tasked with overseeing the
Governor’s vision for education transformation in an effort to create a seamless, unified system
for investing in and delivering public education from early childhood through high school and
college so that all Oregonians are well prepared for careers in our global economy (OEIB, 2012).
The OEIB was also responsible for hiring a Chief Education Officer to oversee the
system and in 2012, Dr. Rudy Crew, a nationally recognized educator, was hired as the Chief
Education Officer (CEO) to lead Oregon through these reforms.
SB 1581 was passed by the Oregon legislature in 2012 and contained two key
recommendations of the OEIB related to SB 253 and SB 909: 1) Authorizes the Chief Education
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 48
Officer to direct other state education officials in the design and organization of the state’s
unified public education; and 2) requires that all of Oregon’s education entities enter into annual
achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with the 2012-13 school year. The achievement
compacts served as two-way partnership agreements that challenged educators across Oregon to
set targets on key student outcomes and encourage broad collaboration to adopt transformational
practices, policies and budgets to help students achieve the educational outcomes valued by
Oregonians.
The purpose of the study is to: 1) determine if Oregon achievement compacts measure
accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern Oregon; and 2) determine
how special education programs are being restructured to meet these goals. The intent of the
study is to examine whether or not the achievement compacts will improve academic
achievement for students with disabilities. A focus will be on identifying how progress for this
group will be measured and monitored.
This study will provide a detailed analysis of how special education administrators
support the implementation of the achievement compacts at the district and classroom levels.
Case studies will be conducted in a specific region of Oregon to support the study.
Research Questions:

The research questions that will be addressed in this study are:
1. What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system using to
measure accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern
Oregon?
2. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach
achievement compact goals?
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 49
Purposeful Sample and Population
Using Oregon’s Department of Education Data Book (2007), a purposeful sample of two
school districts in the eastern region of Oregon was selected to participate in the study. The
selection of the sample in this study was determined by the researcher in coordination with his
doctoral committee. The parameters for the selection of the sample consist of the following:
 Rural public schools.
 K-12 districts in Oregon.
 Special education administrators in Oregon public schools.
The districts were selected based on the number of students served and all have similar
demographics. The schools identified are: Cardinal School District and Gold School District.
For the two districts studied, interviews were conducted with the directors of special
education of that district. The interviews were used as the primary source of information. The
qualitative data gathered from the interviews focused on how goals for the achievement
compacts were chosen, as well as what data were used to determine measures of progress for
students with disabilities. The interviews consisted of 13 open-ended questions. The questions
were used to discover how each school district measured student achievement for students with
disabilities. Email correspondence was used to clarify any missing or incomplete information.
Achievement compacts and mission and vision statements were also used to identify the goals
and objectives of each district.
Instrumentation
The researcher utilized an open-ended interview protocol that focused on methods and
data used to develop the achievement compacts. To prepare for the interview with the special
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 50
education administrators, the interview protocol was piloted with several willing peers and
adjustments were made to the interview protocol as needed. The interview protocol consists of
13 open-ended questions (Fink, 2013). These questions (Appendix A) were designed to
determine the similarities and differences of each district, and whether or not the achievement
compacts related to students with disabilities. Each case study will include an analysis of the
implementation and effectiveness of the achievement compacts for students with disabilities.
Data Collection
An application was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to determine if the
study was subject to the Human Subjects Review. The IRB was completed in September 2013
and it was concluded that the project did not qualify as Human Subjects Research. The district
special education administrators were initially contacted via email with an introduction and a
summary of the study. Confidentiality was offered to each participant. After securing
commitments to participate in the study, appointments were scheduled to conduct the interviews.
Due to several delays and reschedules, the interviews were completed in December 2013. The
interviews were recorded to ensure the researcher accurately reflected the information gathered
during the interview. All information regarding the selected school districts and special
education administrators were given fictitious names for the purposes of anonymity. All data
were safeguarded per IRB requirements.
Data Analysis
The research questions in the study guided the data analysis collected from the
participants. Data analysis occurred immediately after each interview and the data gathered from
the interviews was used to identify patterns in the responses that represented important strategies.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 51
Summary
With the recent implementation of a new accountability reporting system, Oregon has
established a method for determining which schools in Oregon are best meeting the needs of
socioeconomically disadvantaged students and closing the achievement gap. The information
gathered from this study will hopefully provide policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with
a better understanding of how to achieve student achievement for all students.
This chapter described the data collection methodology and procedure used to conduct
the data collection and analysis. Detailed information has been provided on the purposeful
sample and population, identification of schools, instrumentation and data collection process, and
data analysis. The following chapter will include results from the analysis in response to the
research questions used in this study.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 52
CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS
Introduction
In this chapter, the results of the study are presented with an overview of the
characteristics and performance data from the school districts included in the study. The purpose
of the study is to: 1) determine if Oregon’s achievement compacts measure accountability for
students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern Oregon; and 2) determine how special
education programs are being restructured to meet these goals. The intent of the study is to
examine whether or not the achievement compacts will improve academic achievement for
students with disabilities. A focus will be on identifying how progress for this group will be
measured and monitored. The research questions have been used as a framework to review the
findings and answer the following research questions:
1. What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system using to
measure accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern
Oregon?
2. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach
achievement compact goals?
Demographics and Characteristics
As part of the methodology, two rural, public K-12 school districts were selected within
the same county in the eastern region of Oregon. The districts were selected based on the
number of students served and have similar demographics. The following table is provided to
demonstrate the similarities in student ethnicity for each school district.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 53
Table 4.1: 2012-2013 Ethnic Make-up for Cardinal SD and Gold SD.
Hispanic/Latino Non-
Hispanic
White
African-
American
Asian Multiracial Total
Enrollment
Cardinal SD 63% 34% <1% <1% 3% 1,178
Gold SD 61% 31% 3% <1% 5% 1,395
Based on 2012-2013 Student Ethnicity Report found at
http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/reports.aspx

The districts selected were similar in terms of student population and socio-economic
status. Each district received positive report card ratings for the 2011-12 school years. Possible
ratings for Oregon schools are Outstanding, Satisfactory, or In Need of Improvement. Both
districts offered The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which is a federally assisted meal
program that provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost and free lunches to more than 30 million
eligible children each school day (USDA.gov, 2014). The following academic supports are also
offered for each district: English Language (EL) Instruction, Special Education—Response to
Intervention (RTI), and 21st Century After-School programs. The director of Cardinal SD stated
that the needs of the student subgroups and historically underserved student populations are
being addressed through the achievement compacts as the compacts require districts to set target
numbers and/or percentages for the outcomes for the following student groups:
 Economically disadvantaged;
 Limited English proficient;
 Students with disabilities;
 Black (not of Hispanic origin);
 Hispanic origin/Latino;
 American Indian or Alaskan Native; and
 Pacific Islander (as data is available) (Participant A, Personal Communication,
December, 2013).

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 54
According to the 2012-2013 Oregon Statewide Report Card, the number of Oregon
students receiving special education services through the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act
(IDEA) has averaged 13.15% of total enrollment over the last five years. Both districts are
slightly below the state average in terms of percentage of students identified as receiving special
education services. In alignment with the study specifications, the following school districts
were selected: The following table displays the percentage of students with disabilities for each
district in relation to the state average.
Table 4.2: District and State of Oregon Special Education Population
Total Student
Population
Total Students
with Disabilities
% Identification
Special
Education 2011-
2012
Cardinal SD 1,178 135 11.5%
Gold SD 1,395 158 11.3%
Oregon State
2012-2013
563,714 74,796 13.3%
Data found in individual district’s 2012-2013 Report Cards.

Accountability Measures and Indicators of Success
Addressing the accountability of student achievement of students with disabilities was
included as one of the purposes of the achievement compacts that stemmed from the Oregon
Legislature passing Senate Bill 1581. The purpose stated was to replace provisions of the No
Child Left Behind Act with a more supportive and flexible accountability system in K-12
districts. When asked how student achievement and accountability were measured for SWD,
both directors noted the System Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) as the main
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 55
system used to help districts monitor federal compliance regulations. The SPR&I focus on
improving student outcomes and assists in monitoring federal compliance regulations by using
the following indicators: Graduation rates, Drop-Out rates, Participation Assessment,
Suspensions and Expulsions, LRE, Preschool LRE, Preschool Improved Outcomes, Parent
Involvement, Disproportionate Identification, Disproportionate Disability Categories, Child
Find, Transition C-B, Transition Goals IEP, Post-secondary + 1 year.
The SPR&I is a district/program driven system founded on evidence-based decision-
making. It supports improvement planning through the (1) collection and interpretation of data,
(2) development and implementation of an improvement plan, and (3) evaluation of impact and
effectiveness of improvement strategies. The SPR&I align with IDEA General Supervision
requirements and improvement planning. This alignment supports a close relationship between
special education improvement planning and other district or community improvement planning
efforts. The SPR&I are designed to enhance partnerships among the ODE, School Districts,
Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education Programs (EI/ECSE), other educational
and community agencies, and parents. These partnerships focus on special education services
and systems that directly impact results for students and on the development and implementation
of improvement strategies to address identified needs (ODE, 2014).

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 56
Table 4.3 identifies the indicators used to measure special education accountability:
Table 4.3: SPR&I Indicator Measurement Table taken from the ODE website:
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=2735
Monitoring Priority Indicator Measurement Data Source(s) SpEd RC
FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 1:
Percent of youth with IEPs
graduating from high
school with a regular
diploma.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

States must report using the graduation
rate calculation and timeline
established by the Department under
the ESEA.

High School
Completer, Early
Leaver, SpEd
Exit, SECC, Child
Find
District
Indicator 2:
Percent of youth with IEPs
dropping out of high
school.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
States must report using the dropout
data used in the ESEA graduation rate
calculation and follow the timeline
established by the Department under
the ESEA.
Early Leaver,
SpEd Exit, SECC,
Child Find, Fall
Membership
District
Indicator 3:
Participation and
performance of children
with IEPs on statewide
assessments:
A. Percent of the
districts with a
disability subgroup
that meets the
State’s minimum
“n” size that meet
the State’s AYP
targets for the
disability
subgroup.
B. Participation rate
for children with
IEPs.
C. Proficiency rate for
children with IEPs
against grade level,
modified and
alternate academic
achievement
standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416
(a)(3)(A))
A. AYP percent = [(# of districts with
a disability subgroup that meets the
State’s minimum “n” size that meet the
State’s AYP targets for the disability
subgroup) divided by the (total # of
districts that have a disability subgroup
that meets the State’s minimum “n”
size)] times 100.
B. Participation rate percent = [(# of
children with IEPs participating in the
assessment) divided by the (total # of
children with IEPs enrolled during the
testing window, calculated separately
for reading and math)]. The
participation rate is based on all
children with IEPs, including both
children with IEPs enrolled for a full
academic year and those not enrolled
for a full academic year.
C. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of
children with IEPs enrolled for a full
academic year scoring at or above
proficient) divided by the (total # of
children with IEPs enrolled for a full
academic year, calculated separately
for reading and math)].

AYP, Statewide
Assessment,
SECC, Spring
Membership
District
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 57
Monitoring Priority Indicator Measurement Data Source(s) SpEd RC

FAPE in the LRE

Indicator 4:
Rates of suspension and
expulsion:
A. Percent of districts
that have a
significant
discrepancy in the
rate of suspensions
and expulsions of
greater than 10 days
in a school year for
children with IEPs;
and
B. Percent of districts
that have: (a) a
significant
discrepancy, by race
or ethnicity, in the
rate of suspensions
and expulsions of
greater than 10 days
in a school year for
children with IEPs;
and (b) policies,
procedures or
practices that
contribute to the
significant
discrepancy and do
not comply with
requirements relating
to the development
and implementation
of IEPs, the use of
positive behavioral
interventions and
supports, and
procedural
safeguards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A);
1412(a)(22))

A. Percent = [(# of districts that have
a significant discrepancy in the
rates of suspensions and
expulsions for greater than 10 days
in a school year of children with
IEPs) divided by the (# of districts
in the State)] times 100.
B. Percent = [(# of districts that have:
(a) a significant discrepancy, by
race or ethnicity, in the rates of
suspensions and expulsions of
greater than 10 days in a school
year of children with IEPs; and (b)
policies, procedures or practices
that contribute to the significant
discrepancy and do not comply
with requirements relating to the
development and implementation
of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and
supports, and procedural
safeguards) divided by the (# of
districts in the State)] times 100.
Oregon defines “significant
discrepancy” as a:
 Weighted risk ratio > 2.0;
and
 More than three IDEA
eligible students with
greater than 10 days
suspension/expulsion.
Discipline
Incidents
District
Indicator 5:
Percent of children with
IEPs aged 6 through 21
served:
A. Inside the regular
class 80% or more
of the day;
B. Inside the regular
class less than 40%
of the day; and
C. In separate schools,
residential
facilities, or
homebound/hospit
al placements.
A. Percent = [(# of children with
IEPs served inside the regular
class 80% or more of the day)
divided by the (total # of
students aged 6 through 21 with
IEPs)] times 100.
B. Percent = [(# of children with
IEPs served inside the regular
class less than 40% of the day)
divided by the (total # of
students aged 6 through 21 with
IEPs)] times 100.
C. Percent = [(# of children with
IEPs served in separate schools,
residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital
SECC District
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 58
Monitoring Priority Indicator Measurement Data Source(s) SpEd RC
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A)) placements) divided by the
(total # of students aged 6
through 21 with IEPs)] times
100.
Disproportionate
Representation

Disproportionate
Representation
Indicator B9:
Percent of districts with
disproportionate
representation of racial
and ethnic groups in
special education and
related services that is
the result of
inappropriate
identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Percent = [(# of districts with
disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is
the result of inappropriate
identification) divided by the (# of
districts in the State)] times 100.
Oregon defines disproportionate
representation as:
 The percentage of IDEA
eligible students
disaggregated by
race/ethnicity differs by +/-
20% from the percentage of
all students within the
district disaggregated by
race/ethnicity in at least one
race/ethnicity category
 Weighted Risk Ratio
analysis shows a value of
>2.0 or <0.25 in the same
race/ethnicity category; and,
 There are at least 10 IDEA
eligible students in the same
race/ethnicity category in
special education.

Inappropriate identification is
determined based on information
submitted by the district through the
guided self-analysis worksheet and if
necessary, a policy to practice review.
Based on its review of the 618 data for
FFY 2008, describe how the State
made its annual determination that the
disproportionate representation it
identified (consider both over and
underrepresentation) of racial and
ethnic groups in special education and
related services was the result of
inappropriate identification as required
by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a),
e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing
policies, practices and procedures, etc.
In determining disproportionate
representation, analyze data, for each
district, for all racial and ethnic groups
in the district, or all racial and ethnic
groups in the district that meet a
minimum 'n' size set by the State.
Report on the percent of districts in
which disproportionate representation
of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services is the
SECC, Fall
Membership,
SPR&I
District
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 59
Monitoring Priority Indicator Measurement Data Source(s) SpEd RC
result of inappropriate identification,
even if the determination of
inappropriate identification was made
after the end of the FFY 2009 reporting
period, i.e., after June 30, 2010. If
inappropriate identification is
identified, report on corrective actions
taken.
Indicator B10:
Percent of districts with
disproportionate
representation of racial
and ethnic groups in
specific disability
categories that is the
result of inappropriate
identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Percent = [(# of districts with
disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that is the result of
inappropriate identification) divided by
the (# of districts in the State)] times
100.
Oregon defines “disproportionate
representation” as:
 The percentage of IDEA
eligible students
disaggregated by
race/ethnicity and disability
category differs by +/- 20%
from the percentage of all
students within the district
disaggregated by
race/ethnicity in at least one
race/ethnicity and disability
category
 Weighted Risk Ratio
analysis shows a value of
>2.0 or <0.25 in the same
race/ethnicity category and
disability category; and,
 There are at least 10 IDEA
eligible students in the same
race/ethnicity category and
disability category.

Inappropriate identification is
determined based on information
submitted by the district through the
guided self-analysis worksheet and if
necessary, a policy to practice review.
Based on its review of the 618 data for
FFY 2008, describe how the State
made its annual determination that the
disproportionate representation it
identified (consider both over and
under representation) of racial and
ethnic groups in specific disability
categories was the result of
inappropriate identification as required
by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a),
e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing
policies, practices and procedures, etc.
In determining disproportionate
representation, analyze data, for each
SECC, Fall
Membership,
SPR&I
District
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 60
Monitoring Priority Indicator Measurement Data Source(s) SpEd RC
district, for all racial and ethnic groups
in the district, or all racial and ethnic
groups in the district that meet a
minimum 'n' size set by the State.
Report on the percent of districts in
which disproportionate representation
of racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories is the result of
inappropriate identification, even if the
determination of inappropriate
identification was made after the end of
the FFY 2009, i.e., after June 30, 2010.
If inappropriate identification is
identified, report on corrective actions
taken.
Effective General
Supervision Part
B / Child Find

Indicator B11:
Percent of children who
were evaluated within 60
days of receiving parental
consent for initial
evaluation or, if the State
establishes a timeframe
within which the
evaluation must be
conducted, within that
timeframe.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
a. # of children for whom parental
consent to evaluate was received.
b. # of children whose evaluations
were completed within 60 days (or
State-established timeline).
Account for children included in a but
not included in b. Indicate the range of
days beyond the timeline when the
evaluation was completed and any
reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times
100.
Child Find
District &
Program
Effective General
Supervision Part
B / Effective
Transition

Indicator 13:
Percent of youth with
IEPs aged 16 and above
with an IEP that includes
appropriate measurable
postsecondary goals that
are annually updated and
based upon an age
appropriate transition
assessment, transition
services, including
courses of study, that will
reasonably enable the
student to meet those
postsecondary goals, and
annual IEP goals related
to the student’s transition
services needs. There also
must be evidence that the
student was invited to the
IEP Team meeting where
transition services are to
be discussed and evidence
that, if appropriate, a
representative of any
participating agency was
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged
16 and above with an IEP that includes
appropriate measurable postsecondary
goals that are annually updated and
based upon an age appropriate
transition assessment, transition
services, including courses of study,
that will reasonably enable the student
to meet those postsecondary goals, and
annual IEP goals related to the
student’s transition services needs.
There also must be evidence that the
student was invited to the IEP Team
meeting where transition services are to
be discussed and evidence that, if
appropriate, a representative of any
participating agency was invited to the
IEP Team meeting with the prior
consent of the parent or student who
has reached the age of majority)
divided by the (# of youth with an IEP
age 16 and above)] times 100.
This indicator has been revised and will
be reported on beginning with the FFY
2009 SPP due February, 2011.
SECC, SPR&I
PCR Data
District
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 61
Monitoring Priority Indicator Measurement Data Source(s) SpEd RC

invited to the IEP Team
meeting with the prior
consent of the parent or
student who has reached
the age of majority.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Indicator 14:
Percent of youth who are
no longer in secondary
school, had IEPs in effect
at the time they left school,
and were:
A. Enrolled in higher
education within one
year of leaving high
school.
B. Enrolled in higher
education or
competitively
employed within one
year of leaving high
school.
C. Enrolled in higher
education or in some
other postsecondary
education or training
program; or
competitively
employed or in some
other employment
within one year of
leaving high school.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
A. Percent enrolled in higher
education = [(# of youth who are
no longer in secondary school,
had IEPs in effect at the time they
left school and were enrolled in
higher education within one year
of leaving high school) divided
by the (# of respondent youth
who are no longer in secondary
school and had IEPs in effect at
the time they left school)] times
100.
B. Percent enrolled in higher
education or competitively
employed within one year of
leaving high school = [(# of youth
who are no longer in secondary
school, had IEPs in effect at the
time they left school and were
enrolled in higher education or
competitively employed within
one year of leaving high school)
divided by the (# of respondent
youth who are no longer in
secondary school and had IEPs in
effect at the time they left
school)] times 100.
C. Percent enrolled in higher
education, or in some other
postsecondary education or
training program; or
competitively employed or in
some other employment = [(# of
youth who are no longer in
secondary school, had IEPs in
effect at the time they left school
and were enrolled in higher
education, or in some other
postsecondary education or
training program; or
competitively employed or in
some other employment) divided
by the (# of respondent youth
who are no longer in secondary
school and had IEPs in effect at
the time they left school)] times
100.

SpEd Exit, SECC,
High School
Completer, Early
Leaver, Post
School Outcomes
District
Effective General
Supervision Part B
/ General
Supervision
Indicator 15:
General supervision
system (including
monitoring, complaints,
hearings, etc.) identifies
Percent of noncompliance corrected
within one year of identification:
a. # of findings of noncompliance.
b. # of corrections completed as
soon as possible but in no case
later than one year from
identification.
SPR&I PCR Data,
Dispute
Resolution
Database

No

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 62
Monitoring Priority Indicator Measurement Data Source(s) SpEd RC
and corrects
noncompliance as soon as
possible but in no case
later than one year from
identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)]
times 100.

Based on 2009-2010 SPR&I Indicator Measurement Table taken from the
ODE website:
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=2735

An additional measurement of achievement for SWD used in Oregon is the Oregon
Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS). The OAKS is a standards-based test designed to
show how students are performing against Oregon's academic content standards. For the OAKS,
it was noted that each district utilizes the data as broken down by subgroups and then uses that
data to help make decisions.
According to the 2012-2013 Oregon Statewide Report Card, Oregon measures student
performance and progress in several ways: through statewide assessments at grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, and 11; through national and international achievement tests; and through performance on
college admissions tests such as the SAT and ACT. When asked how districts are measuring the
performance of students with disabilities, the director responded, “As with state testing, we
continue to measure performance using data for all students and subgroups (Personal
Communication, December, 2013). The director noted subgroups were used to help reduce or
eliminate the possibility of student information getting lost when completing state forms.
Reporting and target-setting in the aggregate provides a unique student count that provides
information in those small districts where numbers are too small to disaggregate and also ensures
that no masking of any achievement gaps occurs. An additional component of the achievement
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 63
compacts require districts to identify the number of “focus” and “priority” schools in their
districts, which are identified as schools that appear to have the lowest overall achievement or
lowest achievement for these student populations (Participant A, Personal Communication,
December, 2013).
While the reauthorization of IDEA made it a federal mandate to include achievement
scores of students with disabilities in regular statewide assessment systems, current emphasis on
special education achievement accountability continues to have a significant impact on schools
nationwide. Statewide assessment and accountability systems provide information for
instructional change and educational reform. Table 4.4 displays the percent of Oregon public
school students in grades 3 – 7 meeting or exceeding standards in reading and math for the 2012-
2013 school years. This information is important as it used as one indicator of success in terms
of student achievement and also demonstrates the achievement gap between all students and
students with disabilities.
Table 4.4: 2012–2013 Percent of Students in Grades 3-7 Meeting or Exceeding Standards in
Reading and Math.
G3 R G3 M G4 R G4 M G5 R G5 M G6 R G6 M G7 R G7 M
All
Students
66% 61% 73% 64% 68% 58% 63% 59% 73% 61%
Students
with Dis-
abilities
33% 34% 36% 32% 30% 24% 23% 21% 30% 21%
Data taken from Oregon Department of Education.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 64
The Oregon Department of Education states that in addition to statewide assessments,
graduation and dropout rates, as well as school and district report cards, provide useful measures
of student performance and progress. Table 4.5 notes the graduation and dropout rates for
students with disabilities for the districts used in this study.
Table 4.5: 2012–2013 Graduation, Completion and Dropout Rates for SWD.
Cardinal SD Gold SD State
Target
Graduation
Rate for
SWD
27.3% 24% 38.2%
Completion
Rate for
SWD
33.3% 47.8% 65.8%
Dropout
Rate for
SWD
2.8% 6.0% 4.8%
Data found on individual district’s websites.

Appropriate placement of students receiving special education services is also an
important indicator of success as districts continue to move toward more inclusive and
collaborative models. Both districts exceeded the state targets of 70+% in terms of placing
students in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Having the programs to support the needs of
the students requires monetary and community support in providing LRE. Participant A stated
that, “The needs of most of our students are met in their resident school and in an inclusion
model. However, there are some exceptions where schools have a Learning Center in which
students with more severe disabilities receive some of their specially designed instruction in a
pull out setting” (Personal Communication, December, 2013). Both directors noted that
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 65
additional supports and trainings are provided to the general education teachers that work with
students with disabilities in their classrooms.
Parent involvement is also an indicator of success and both districts met the state target of
41% in terms of parent involvement. Participant A felt this was due to the low, overall size of
the district and low number of total SWD. The participant went on to state that, in her opinion,
the larger districts often had more difficulty with parent involvement due to larger overall
numbers, especially as the students got older (Personal Communication, December, 2013).
Interview Data
The study included interviews with two participants who were integral members of the
district level teams that developed and wrote the achievement compacts for their district. The
interviews consisted of approximately 13 open-ended questions (Appendix A) that were
developed to answer the two research questions. The interviews were conducted by phone and
lasted approximately 45 minutes. The interviews were recorded and transcribed immediately
following the interview. The interviews began with a brief discussion of the participant’s job
responsibilities and daily duties. The focus then turned to the OEIB, achievement compacts, and
the 40/40/20 plan. When asked what the director thought about the role the OEIB is fulfilling the
director responded, “I think the OEIB is guiding the “what” and the “why” behind changes in
Oregon’s new system of accountability” (Participant A, Personal Communication, December,
2013)”. Regarding the 40/40/20 plan, the participants did not feel the goal of 100% of students
was attainable for this particular group of students.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 66
Findings by Research Question
Two research questions guided this study. This section is organized to report and discuss
findings by research question. As directed by the OEIB (2012) achievement compacts were
developed by each school district and educational institution to improve teaching and learning,
promote student success, and achieve the state’s new goals for high school and college
completion and career readiness for all Oregon students.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked: What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement
compact system using to measure accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas
of eastern Oregon? After conducting the interviews, it was clear that the achievement compacts
did not directly affect the achievement for students with disabilities. As the achievement
compacts include achievement data from SPR&I and OAKS, two major measures and indicators
of success for students with disabilities, not much focus was placed on the achievement
compacts for students with disabilities.
While the participants expressed support for the achievement compacts in terms of
overall accountability, they did not feel the compacts had much impact on student achievement
for SWD. The participants noted that federal compliance standards and IEPs were the main
accountability measures for special education and students with disabilities and for this reason
the compacts would never override those measures (Personal Communication, December, 2013).
The participants agreed that the indicators of success used to measure achievement for students
with disabilities have not changed due to the achievement compacts. Achievement continues to
be measured on an individual and ongoing basis as to whether or not the student is making
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 67
progress. Participant A reiterated that student progress is measured by IEP benchmarks and
goals, grades in the classroom, attendance, and graduation rates (Personal Communication,
December, 2013).
The participants felt the achievement compacts brought some much needed attention to
the area of special education and hoped they would bring a stronger instructional focus to help
balance the ongoing 100% compliance component. Participant A did not feel the goal of 100%
compliance was realistic due to the nature of the system (Personal Communication, December,
2013). When asked to expand on this statement, examples such as not receiving paperwork from
outside agencies and lack of parent participation were noted as two significant factors that
complicate the matter. Overall, the participants feel the compacts are an additional way to
measure growth.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked: How are district special education leaders restructuring
programs to reach achievement compact goals? This question sought to determine how special
education leaders are restructuring programs to reach the achievement compact goals. Both
directors stated that they did not feel a need to restructure their special education programs due to
the achievement compacts. Instead of restructuring programs, the director stated that the best
way to support students with disabilities is by staying the course with the plan for improving
academic instruction and student performance in the district. This plan includes new systems for
teacher observations, in addition to feedback and evaluations that are closely tied to evidence-
based strategies and practices. Odden and Picus (2011) note the following practices to improve
student performance:
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 68
 Use data-based decision-making.
 Set ambitious goals, regardless of demographics.
 Adopt new curriculum and textbook materials, while developing a school wide vision
of effective practices used by all teachers.
 Invest in professional development: collaborative time for teachers, use of
instructional coaches, funding for trainers and staff development.
 Have teachers work in groups or teams to use student data to modify instruction as
appropriate.
 Provide intervention strategies for struggling students.
 Build capacity in teachers and administrators.
 Use evidenced-based practices to accomplish clearly identified goals.
The director went on to note that they are also working to better align the curriculum and
update programs to address the demands of the CCSS by implementing standards based IEPs to
assist staff and students in meeting their goals and improving academic achievement for SWD
(Personal Communication, December, 2013). Participant A noted that, “If program change was
to take place, it would most likely be due to a change in student needs or population (Personal
Communication, December, 2013). The focus for older students is to develop transition goals
and services that help prepare for post-secondary and employment opportunities. Parental and
community support are important factors in order for a district to have a successful transition
program (Personal Communication, December, 2013).
One director stated that the school systems should be responsible for student growth, but
did not agree with the expectation that students with disabilities meet the same standards as
students without disabilities are expected to meet on the same timeline (Personal
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 69
Communication, December, 2013). Participant A concluded the interview with the following
statement:
For me and several other colleagues I’ve discussed this with, the overwhelming feeling is
that even though the achievement compacts have brought some needed attention to the
area of special education, we have not felt an impact from them regarding our students.
The focus to improve special education is always appreciated but the focus continues to
be on quality teaching, better instruction, and solid IEPs with measurable goals and
benchmarks (Personal Communication, December, 2013).

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 70
Conclusion
Oregon has started in a new direction to improve its schools. An important component of
that is holding schools accountable for the improvement of student performance for all students.
The purpose of this study was to review the development of the Oregon’s Achievement
Compacts as they relate to improving the academic achievement of students with disabilities.
The following research questions were addressed during this study: 1) what indicators of success
is Oregon’s achievement compact system using to measure accountability for students with
disabilities in the rural areas of eastern Oregon; and 2) how are district special education leaders
restructuring programs to reach achievement compact goals.
Fullan (2010) noted that educational improvement efforts will fail unless a whole-system
approach is used. With the creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB), Oregon
has taken steps in creating a whole-system approach with an emphasis on accountability toward
education reform. From the interviews and a review of documents from the OEIB and ODE
websites, it is clear that the achievement compacts main focus at this time is on accountability.
Based on the interview data, district directors do not feel the achievement compacts were
a significant factor nor had a direct impact on the measurement or achievement for students with
disabilities. In addition to individual IEP goals and benchmarks, districts are using the System
Performance Review & Improvement (SPR&I) and the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (OAKS) to measure achievement for students with disabilities. District special education
leaders continue to focus on quality teaching and special education programs to meet the
achievement goals for students with disabilities.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 71
The district directors do not feel a need to restructure their special education programs
under the achievement compacts. The goal is to continue to focus on student need, quality
programs and the least restrictive environment for their students. The districts will continue to
offer a variety of service models including separate classrooms, inclusion classrooms, and career
and transition services.
In terms of challenges that may inhibit districts from meeting the goals, the director
responded, “The biggest issues we foresee are student attendance and follow through on
funding” (Personal Communication, December, 2013). Odden and Picus (2011) stated that
school performance can improve as long as districts redirect spending, develop a powerful
vision, reallocate resources to meet the vision, and restructure compensation. Compensation and
funding are genuine concerns as the reform has not been matched with a long-term revenue fund.
According to the OEIB (2013), the state has a moral obligation to prepare students to be college
and career ready while acknowledging that K-12 education continues to receive a smaller portion
of the state budget and admitting that districts will not be able to make the improvements
necessary to meet the 40/40/20 goal without adequate funding. While the idea was for the state
to fund the programs that the educational institutions designed to meet the needs of their
students, this has yet to occur; so how the programs will move forward remains to be seen.
Although the compacts are relatively new, they have been a useful tool in creating
discussion around Oregon’s educational goals. The achievement compacts will continue to
evolve and have been beneficial in bringing much needed attention, focus, and accountability to
the often underserved students in Oregon that are not equally prepared for college or the
workplace.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 72
Chapter 5 will provide a summary of the study, discuss further implications of the
findings, discuss study limitations, draw conclusions, and provide recommendations for further
research.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 73
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
This final chapter presents a brief overview of the study, a summary of findings,
limitations for the study and recommendations for further research.
Overview of the Study
In February 2012, Oregon filed a request for a NCLB waiver, making it one of the first
states to seek and receive a waiver from the NCLB requirements. Oregon has taken on a
statewide educational reform project using achievement compacts to change its educational
system. Achievement compacts were introduced to all schools in April 2012, with guidelines
and templates to be completed and approved by July 2, 2012. As directed by the OEIB, the
achievement compacts were developed by each school district and educational institution to
provide a comprehensive statewide accountability measure that would unify the P-20 education
system.
Using Oregon’s Department of Education Data Book (2007), a purposeful sample of two
school districts in the eastern region of Oregon was selected to participate in the study. The
selection of the sample in this study was determined by the researcher in coordination with his
doctoral committee. The parameters for the selection of the sample consist of the following:
 Rural public schools.
 K-12 districts in Oregon.
 Special education administrators in Oregon public schools.
The districts were selected based on the number of students served and all have similar
demographics. The schools identified are: Cardinal School District and Gold School District.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 74
The study consisted of interviews with special education administrators that were directly
involved with the achievement compacts and how the compacts related to students with
disabilities. The interviews were used as the primary source of information and consisted of 13
open-ended questions designed to support two research questions. The interviews lasted from 30
to 45 minutes each, and were transcribed immediately following the interview. District mission
and vision statements, as well as achievement compacts were also reviewed to collect data.
The purpose of the study was to identify what accountability systems are in place to
monitor student performance and promote success for students with disabilities. The importance
of the study is to provide the OEIB with information on the achievement compacts as they relate
to students with disabilities and to examine whether or not the achievement compacts improve
academic achievement for SWD. The research will also provide district level administrators
with information on accountability measures and program reform.
Summary of Findings
The following will discuss the results to the two driving research questions that were answered
during this study:
1. What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system using to
measure accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern
Oregon?
2. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach
achievement compact goals?
The first research question focused on the indicators of success Oregon’s achievement
compact system used measure accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 75
eastern Oregon. After conducting the interviews, it was clear that the achievement compacts did
not directly affect the achievement for students with disabilities. In addition to the federal
compliance regulations and IEPs, districts also use statewide assessments, attendance, graduation
and dropout rates, district report cards, parent participation, students appropriately placed in the
least restrictive environment, and achievement data from SPR&I and OAKS as measures and
indicators of success for students with disabilities. Student achievement continues to be
measured on an individual and ongoing basis as to whether or not the student is making progress.
The second research question examined how district special education leaders
restructured programs to reach achievement compact goals. Both directors were on the same
page in that they did not see a need, at this time, to restructure their special education programs.
A change in program would be driven by federal mandate, the needs of the students or a change
in student population. Instead of restructuring programs, work would continue toward improving
achievement outcomes and academic instruction in the classroom by better aligning curriculum
to address the demands of the CCSS, implementing standards based IEP goals, and increasing
stakeholder involvement. Parent involvement, quality teaching, and solid IEPs with measurable
goals and benchmarks will drive academic achievement for SWD.
The information gathered from this study will hopefully provide policymakers,
practitioners, and researchers with a better understanding of how to improve student achievement
for all students. When examining the findings from this sample of smaller districts within
Oregon, it is important to consider the limitations of the study as it may impact the ability to
generalize the information to a broader field. The next section will examine the study’s
limitations:
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 76
Limitations
The following limitations were present in the study:
 Due to the sample size, the findings may not be generalized to other schools and student
populations, especially those in different regions of Oregon.
 The method of data collection was based on interviews, the review of websites, and
document reviews; therefore, the findings may be subjective.
 Resistance to the interview process was experienced with the public school system
administrators. It is not clear where the resistance originated, but it resulted in a smaller
sample than was originally planned. Three school districts that were contacted declined
to participate.
 The information gathered from the interviews is based on the perceptions of the
administrators interviewed who may not constitute a representative sample of all school
administrators.
 There is only one complete year of achievement data that has the baseline, targets,
projections and actual outcomes available at the time of this study, therefore it is unclear
how meaningful this data will be in the future.
 The achievement compacts are a relatively new requirement for the educational
institutions, and are still evolving and changing. The achievement compacts may look
different in the future, require different information and the data may not be able to be
compared.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 77
 Data for the achievement compacts are based on students already in the system and do
not reflect interventions, new programs or proven techniques being implemented to
improve academic performance for older students.
Recommendation for Further Research
This study focuses on the current educational reform movement in Oregon schools. The
goal was to examine how the achievement compacts were being designed, implemented and
monitored across educational institutions in one rural area of eastern Oregon. This study
included two public schools from a K-12 school district. The following recommendations for
future research are made based on the findings of this study:
 It would be useful to study other school districts in Oregon to determine if their
achievement compact increased student achievement for SWD or whether a new policy
or program would better serve SWD.
 Determine if the districts receive the funding to move forward with their goals and
programs.
 It would be beneficial to study accountability measures to determine if current measures
accurately capture student data for SWD.
 While districts are allowed creativity in the goal setting process, this does not guarantee
that the achievement compacts are the driving force. The state may want to consider
implementing certain mandatory components to ensure the achievement compacts are
included in the goal development process.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 78
 Special education administrators often spend the majority of their time on compliance
issues as opposed to improving quality instruction and programs so it would be valuable
to determine if special education federal compliance indicators directly improve student
achievement.
Conclusion
Oregon is advancing to improve its school system and an important component is holding
schools accountable for student achievement. In 2011, Governor John Kitzhaber looked to build
on both the Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century and the recommendations of the Oregon
Quality Education Model (OEIB, 2011). In doing so, Governor Kitzhaber recommended that the
Oregon Legislature pass Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) and Senate Bill 909 (SB 909). Senate Bill 253
(SB 253), also known as 40/40/20, established the 40/40/20 goal to be completed by 2025. The
goals states that by the year 2025, 40% of adult Oregonians will have earned a bachelor’s degree
or higher, that 40% will have earned an associate’s degree or a meaningful postsecondary
certificate, and that the remaining 20% or less of all adult Oregonians will have earned a high
school diploma or equivalent (OEIB, 2012).
To assist with these goals, Senate Bill 909 was passed by the Oregon legislature in 2011.
SB 909 called for the creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) “for the
purpose of ensuring that all public school students in Oregon reach the education outcomes
established for Oregon” (OEIB, 2012). SB 909 directed the OEIB to oversee a unified public
education system from early childhood through post-secondary education (P-20). The OEIB,
chaired by the Governor, was tasked with overseeing the Governor’s vision for education
transformation in an effort to create a seamless, unified system for investing in and delivering
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 79
public education from early childhood through high school and college so that all Oregonians are
well prepared for careers in our global economy (OEIB, 2012).
Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581) was passed by the Oregon legislature in 2012 and contained
two key recommendations of the OEIB related to SB 253 and SB 909: 1) Authorizes the Chief
Education Officer to direct other state education officials in the design and organization of the
state’s unified public education; and 2) requires that all of Oregon’s education entities enter into
annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with the 2012-13 school year. The
achievement compacts served as two-way partnership agreements that challenged educators
across Oregon to set targets on key student outcomes and encourage broad collaboration to adopt
transformational practices, policies and budgets to help students achieve the educational
outcomes valued by Oregonians. With the goal to improve teaching and learning, promote
student success, and achieve the state’s new goals for high school and college completion and
career readiness for all Oregon students, the achievement compacts use several indicators of
success to measure growth as opposed to the traditional achievement scores.
Although the achievement compacts are required under the NCLB waiver, there is not
strong evidence they lead to academic achievement for students with disabilities. The
achievement compacts have been a useful tool in creating discussion around Oregon’s
educational goals as they have brought attention, focus, and accountability to the often
underserved students in Oregon. While districts are allowed creativity in the goal setting
process, this does not guarantee that the achievement compacts are the driving force. The state
may want to consider implementing certain mandatory components to ensure the achievement
compacts are included in the goal development process. With the new leadership of Nancy
Golden, the OEIB may want to continue strengthening the lines of communication with the
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 80
districts to help align the achievement compacts to close the achievement gap for all subgroups,
including student with disabilities.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 81
References

Arnold, M. (2005). Rural education: A new perspective is needed at the U.S. Department of
Education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(3).
Ashton, P., & Crocker, L. (1987). Systematic study of planned variations: the essential focus of
teacher education reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 2.
Bauch, P. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal, and a
sense of place. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 204-221.
Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2000). Why rural matters: The need for every state to take action on
rural education. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(2), 63-140.
Browder, D. M., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. (2005). The impact
of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 267-
282.
Conley, D. T., & Picus, L. O. (2003). Oregon's quality education model: Linking adequacy and
outcomes. Educational Policy, 17(5), 586-612.
Crew, R. (2013, February 10, 2013). [Discussion with USC OEIB Dissertation Group].
Ed.gov website: www.ED.gov.
Eicher, J. P., (2005). Leader-Manager Profile Self-Assessment, 2nd edition.
Figlio, D. (1998). Short-term effects of a 1990s-era property tax limit: Panel evidence on
Oregon’s Measure 5. National Tax Journal. 51(1). 55-71.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys a step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 82
Publications.
Finn, Jr., C.E., Rotherham, A.J., & Hokanson, Jr. C.R. (2001). Conclusions and principles for
reform. Progressive Policy Institute, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2001, available
online at http://www.dlc.org/documents/SpecialEd_conclusions.pdf.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of education reform. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 8, 581-584.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Gersten, R., Woodward, J. (1990), Rethinking the regular education initiative: focus on the
classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 7-16.
Harper, L. (2005). No child left behind’s impact on specialized education. Online NewsHour.
pbs.org/newshour.
Herzog, M. J. R., & Pittman, R. (1995). Home, family, and community: Ingredients in the rural
education equation. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 113-122.
Johnson, J., & Strange, M. (2007). Why rural matters: A report of the rural school and
community trust policy program. Arlington, West Virginia: Rural School and Community
Trust.
Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter
knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7 7, 247-2 71.
Locson, L. (2004). Leading change in special education: A challenge for administrators.
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 83
Unpublished manuscript.
Miller, B. (1993). Rural distress and survival: The school and the importance of community.
Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9(2), 84-103.
Miller, B. (1995). The role of rural schools in community development: Policy issues and
implications. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 11(3), 163-172.
National Agricultural Library (2006). What is rural? Retrieved from http://ric.nal.usda.gov/
Nesbitt, T. (2012). Guidance for Completion of Achievement Compacts for 2012-13. Oregon
Education Investment Board.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2011). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are tight.
Phi Delta Kappan, 93, 42-48.
Oregon Association of Education Service Districts website: http://www.oaesd.org
Oregoned.org website: http://www.oregoned.org/site/pp.asp?c=9dKKKYMDH&b=7907187
Oregon Department of Education (2014). Special Education General Division.

Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=253

Oregon Education Investment Board. (2011). Oregon Learns: Executive Summary Report to
the Legislature from the Oregon Education Investment Board.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012). Achievement compacts: Questions and
answers.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013). What is the OEIB’s charge? Retrieved from
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 84
http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/Pages/oeib/OregonEducationInvestment Board.aspx
Oregon Senate Bill 253. (2011). SB. 253. 76th Cong., General Sess.
Oregon Senate Bill 909 (2011). SB. 909. 76th Cong., General Sess.
Oregon Senate Bill 1581 (2012). SB. 1581. 76
th
Cong. General Sess.
Parents United Together, (n.d.). The legislative history of special education
Retrieved from http://www.parentsunitedtogether.com
Riester-Wood, A. (2004). Accountability for special education students: Beginning quality
education. In L. Skrla & J. J. Scheurich (Eds.), Educational equity and accountability:
Paradigms, policies, and politics. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Roach, V., Dailey, D., & Goertz, M. (1997). State accountability systems and students with
disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and
Special Education Reform.
Schalock, D. (1983). Methodological considerations in future research and development in
teacher education. The Education of Teachers: A look ahead, 38-73.
Sherwood, T. (2000). Where has all the "rural" gone? Rural education research and current
federal reform. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 16(3), 159-167.
Simpson , R.L., LaCave, P.G., & Graner, P.S. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 85
and implications for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic. 40(2), 67-75.
Theobald, P., & Nachtigal, P. (1995). Culture, community, and the promise of rural education.
Phi Delta Kappan, 76(2), 132-135.
Thomas, S.B. (1985). Legal issues in special education. Topeka, KS: National
Organization on Legal Problems of Education.
Thurlow, M., Elliott, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Erickson, R. (1996). Questions and answers: Tough
questions about accountability systems and students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN:
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division. (2002). Census 2000 urban and rural classification.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-
school-lunch-program-nslp
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ED.gov http://www2.ed.gov/programs/naep/index.html
Venezia, A. & Kirst, M.W. (2006). The governance divide: The case study for Oregon. The
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Wagner, T. (August 14, 2007). Five “habits of mind” that count. Education Week.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/15/45wagner.h26html?print=1

Wolfe, P., & Hassel, B. (2001). Effectiveness and accountability (Part I): The compliance model.

In C. Finn, Jr., A. Rotherham, & C. Hokanson, Jr. (eds.), Rethinking special education for
OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 86

a new century (pp. 53-75). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham.

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 87
APPENDIX A

Interview Survey Questions

1. What does a typical work day look like for you?

2. Tell me a about the special education programs currently in place at your school – what
types of programs are implemented? (Prompts: RSP, SDC, Inclusion).

3. What are the goals of the special education department at your school?

4. What do you think of the proposed achievement compacts? The 40/40/20?

5. In our opinion, what role do you feel that the OEIB is fulfilling?

6. Tell me about the previous initiatives and how they do/do not relate to the compacts.

7. In your opinion, how should school systems be held accountable for student achievement
for students with disabilities?

8. How do you plan to achieve the goals you set?

9. What challenges do you foresee that may inhibit you from completing your goals?

10. How are students with disabilities assessed?

11. What obstacles did you face in achieving the goals?

12. Have the goals been aligned with other districts throughout the state?

13. Is there anything that I missed or that you would like to add?

OREGON’S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 88
APPENDIX B

Invitation to Participate in the Study

Date:

Dear:

My name is Justin Sherrill and I am special education assistant principal for the Los
Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE). Currently, I am completing my doctorate at the
University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education. The reason for this email is to
ask you to participate in my thematic study/dissertation. My focus is on special education and I
am looking to interview directors of special education/student services in the eastern part of
Oregon.

Working in special education myself, I realize that your time is extremely limited and
valuable but I would greatly appreciate 30-45 minutes of your time to conduct a 13 question
interview. I will accommodate your schedule in any way possible and would like to conduct the
interview by November 17th if that works for you & your schedule. Please know that any
information shared will be kept completely confidential and pseudo-names will be used to adhere
to the strict confidentiality rules stipulated by the IRB as well as USC. Only I will know the
actual names of the schools, districts, and special education directors that participate.

I would like to learn more about how your district serves its special education population.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your time
and consideration.

Sincerely,

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to identify what accountability systems are in place to monitor student performance and promote success for students with disabilities. The importance of the study is to provide the OEIB with information on the achievement compacts as they relate to students with disabilities and to examine whether or not the achievement compacts improve academic achievement for SWD. The research will also provide district level administrators with information on accountability measures and program reform. The following research questions were posed: ❧ • What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system using to measure accountability for students with disabilities in the rural areas of eastern Oregon? ❧ • How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach achievement compact goals? ❧ As part of the methodology, two rural, public K-12 school districts were selected within the same county in the eastern region of Oregon. The districts were selected based on the number of students served and have similar demographics. ❧ Although the achievement compacts are required under the NCLB waiver, there is not strong evidence they lead to academic achievement for students with disabilities. The achievement compacts have been a useful tool in creating discussion around Oregon’s educational goals as they have brought attention, focus, and accountability to the often underserved students in Oregon. While districts are allowed creativity in the goal setting process, this does not guarantee that the achievement compacts are the driving force. The state may want to consider implementing certain mandatory components to ensure the achievement compacts are included in the goal development process. The OEIB may want to continue strengthening the lines of communication with the districts to help align the achievement compacts to close the achievement gap for all subgroups, including student with disabilities.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to disadvantaged students

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s special education accountability, goal setting, and reform

PDF

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

PDF

An examination of the Oregon state college and career education investment and the Eastern Promise program

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools

PDF

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the elementary level: a case study of one elementary school district in California

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the high school level: a case study of high schools in one California district

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

Asset Metadata

Creator Sherrill, Robert Justin (author)

Core Title An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to special education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/23/2014

Defense Date 03/28/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag achievement compacts,OAI-PMH Harvest,Special Education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), Seelig, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email rjs.704@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-424755

Unique identifier UC11286683

Identifier etd-SherrillRo-2579.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-424755 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SherrillRo-2579.pdf

Dmrecord 424755

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sherrill, Robert Justin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA