University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 1

Copyright 2014 Diane Faith Lohrman

An Examination of Oregon’s Special Education Accountability, Goal Setting, and Reform

by

Diane Lohrman

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

May 2014
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 2

Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge a few of the many individuals who helped make this project
possible. Dr. Picus, thank you for your guidance and support during this doctoral journey. I
would like to extend a special thank you to both Dr. Crew and Dr. Selig for serving as committee
members and providing valuable feedback. To my Orange County cohort, thank you for the
inspiration, encouragement, laughs, and professional growth you provided. To the anonymous
Directors of Special Education within Oregon who took time out of their schedules to help
support research, thank you for your time and candor. You are all amazing leaders and your
districts are lucky to have you serving their students. And finally, to my friends and work
colleagues who supported such an ambitious endeavor.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 3

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family who supported me throughout this journey.
For inspiring me to pursue a doctoral degree and paving the road, thank you Chris Lohrman. To
my mother, Phyllis Clark, this would not have become a reality without her encouragement,
guidance, and support. And most importantly, this is dedicated to my two amazing sons, Jack
and Kent Lohrman. These young men are the driving force in my life, and it was their smiling
faces and excitement at the prospect of calling me Dr. Mom that continued my quest forward.
Thank you, and I love you all.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 4

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 8
Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 12
Purpose Statement ..................................................................................................................... 13
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 13
Importance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 13
Summary of Methodology ........................................................................................................ 14
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 15
Delimitations ............................................................................................................................. 15
Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 15
Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................... 16
Dissertation Organization .......................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 20
Special Education Accountability ............................................................................................. 21
Oregon’s 2011 Special Education Federal Compliance Indicator Results ............................... 28
Educational Reform................................................................................................................... 36
The Basics of Oregon’s K-12 Education System and Special Education ................................. 52
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 3: Methods ....................................................................................................................... 67
Research Questions: .................................................................................................................. 68
Purposeful Sample and Population ........................................................................................... 68
Instrumentation and Data Collection......................................................................................... 71
Qualitative Data......................................................................................................................... 71
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 72
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 72
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 5

Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 74
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 74
Broad District Demographics and Trends ................................................................................. 74
Accountability and Indicators of Success ................................................................................. 78
Goal Setting ............................................................................................................................... 90
Program Restructuring ............................................................................................................ 100
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 110
Chapter 5: Discussion ................................................................................................................. 113
Overview of Study .................................................................................................................. 113
Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 114
Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 118
Recommendations for Future Research .................................................................................. 119
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 120
References ................................................................................................................................... 122
Appendix A: 2011-2012 Oregon State Oaks Scores................................................................... 139
Appendix B: Qualitative Data Collection .................................................................................. 141
Appendix C: Johnson School District Oaks Score Comparison ................................................ 143
Appendix D: Monroe School District Oaks Score Comparison ................................................. 145
Appendix E: Roosevelt School District Oaks Score Comparison ............................................. 147
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 6

List of Tables
Table 2.1: Special Education Federal Compliance Indicators ..................................................... 24
Table 2.2: Oregon’s 2011 Special Education Federal Compliance Indicators ............................ 29
Table 3.1: Oregon School Districts with Students with Disabilities 750 ................................ 69
Table 4.1: District and State of Oregon Special Education Population ....................................... 75
Table 4.2: Diversity Indicators- Ethnicity ................................................................................... 76
Table 4.3: Additional Diversity Indicators .................................................................................. 76
Table 4.4: District Achievement OAKS Indicators 2012-2013 ................................................... 77
Table 4.5: District College and Career Readiness Indicators ...................................................... 77
Table 4.6: Districts 2011-2012 Special Education Federal Compliance Indicators .................... 80
Table 4.7: OAKS Scores Comparison- Math 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 ................................... 86
Table 4.8: OAKS Scores Comparison- Language Arts 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 .................... 87
Table 4.8: Comparison of Achievement Compact Measures of Progression .............................. 91
Table 4.9: Johnson Achievement Compact- Current Data and Compact Goal Projection .......... 93
Table 4.10: Monroe Achievement Compact- Progression Monitoring ........................................ 97
Table 4.11: Roosevelt Achievement Compact- Progression Monitoring ..................................... 99

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 7

Abstract
The following qualitative study examines the interaction between Oregon’s new
achievement compact accountability system and special education. Specifically, Oregon’s
achievement compacts were examined to determine the measures of accountability included as
indicators of success for students with disabilities, how districts determined their individual
achievement goals, and how special education programming was restructured to meet those
goals. The study provides detailed analysis of special education accountability measures, goal
setting, and program reform in 3 large districts in Oregon obtained from interviews with special
education directors and examination of district data.
Findings showed a consistent theme that students with disabilities need to be held to a
high standard and expected to make growth; however, alternative measures and growth targets
such as progress towards IEP goals may also be needed to determine if students are making
meaningful progress in addition to standardized measures and compact goals. Ultimately,
Oregon’s achievement compacts were not the driving force behind program planning and reform
in special education. Rather, the changing needs of student population, and the drive to increase
performance outcomes were the primary influences program reform. Common elements of
program reform were integration of collaborative models for mild/moderate students, post-
secondary program outcome strengthening, and delivering consistent aligned curriculum to
moderate/severe student groups. In order to effectively meet the needs of students with
disabilities, the research pointed to the need for all district stakeholders, both special education
and general education, to be responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities make
substantial progress and work to close the achievement gap.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 8

Chapter 1: Introduction
The national conversation around education dramatically changed in 2001 with the
passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which shifted the focus of educational debate toward
equity and adequacy. NCLB presented a new accountability model that aspired to the goal that
all children would become academically proficient by 2014 and imposed sanctions and mandated
remedies for those schools unable to meet their annual yearly performance goals (No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, 2002). NCLB’s subgroup reporting requirements illuminated the
achievement gap within certain populations which had previously been largely ignored such as
English Language Learners (ELL) and students with disabilities (SWD). As the deadline for
NCLB’s mandated country-wide student proficiency looms on the horizon, law makers and
educators are at the precipice of a new frontier where accountability and the Common Core will
be key players in the evolving educational landscape. Oregon, often considered a pioneer state
in regard to reform movements (Conley & Picus, 2003; Kruegar, 2006; Louis, Thomas, Gordon,
& Febey, 2008), has received a waiver from NCLB criteria and is introducing a new
accountability structure which is centered on the development of achievement compacts between
the State and local districts (Oregon Education Association, 2012b). This research explores the
initial stages of development and implementation of Oregon Education Investment Board’s
(OEIB) achievement compact as a measure of accountability as it applies to the students with
disabilities subgroup. Specifically, Oregon’s achievement compact system will be examined to
determine what measures are included as indicators of success for students with disabilities, how
districts will determine their individual achievement goals, and how special education
programming will be restructured to meet the goals.
In 2011, the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) was established by Senate Bill
909 with the intent to create a unified P-20 education system to prepare Oregonians for careers to
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 9

support Oregon’s economy (State of Oregon, 2013). The OEIB is chaired by the Governor and
charged with creating a unified education system which focuses state investment on student
achievement and works to build state-wide education support systems (Oregon Education
Investment Board, 2011). The overarching state education focus in Oregon is to reach a 40/40/20
goal by 2025. 40/40/20 represents ensuring that 40% of the population has bachelor’s degree or
advanced degree, 40% has an associate’s degree or some type of post-secondary certification,
and that the remaining 20% have earned a high school diploma or equivalency (Oregon
Education Investment Board, 2011). As one critical step to meeting this goal, the OEIB
proposed a shift towards a new accountability system in the form of achievement compacts.
The OEIB began to reconfigure Oregon’s accountability model from the traditional test-
based scoring system of accountability to a proposed waiver method of accountability using
achievement compacts where local boards determine their own target growth goals (Oregon
Education Association, 2012b). The achievement compact structure was designed to allow for
two-way goal setting between the state and education institutions, devise a mechanism to allow
intentionality in budgeting at the local level tying outcomes to budgets, and provide comparison
data for progress between and within districts (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2011). A
primary goal of these achievement compacts was to develop an accountability system that would
focus on the whole child, address individual district needs, use multiple indicators of success, not
rely only on standardized assessments, and value shared accountability (Oregon Education
Association, 2012a, 2012b). As part of the compact structure, disadvantaged students’ data is
disaggregated; however, the same indicators of success are used.
The disadvantaged student data set is comprised of three subgroups to include students
with disabilities (SWD), English Language Learners (EL), and economically disadvantaged
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 10

students (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012d). Based on a data review of Oregon’s
state wide assessment measure, Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS),
statewide, students with disabilities are significantly underperforming their peers across grade
levels and content areas (Oregon Department of Education, 2012a). When examining those
students who have met or exceeded expectations comparatively between all students and students
with disabilities, there is a 36% gap in math, 39% gap in reading, 33% gap in science, and 45%
gap in writing based on the 2011-2012 OAKS scores (Appendix A) (Oregon Department of
Education, 2012a). Additionally, students with disabilities have the lowest graduation rates of all
sub-groups, and over the past three years, there has consistently been more than a twenty percent
gap in graduation rates between all students and students with disabilities. Ensuring that the
achievement gap is closed for students with disabilities impacts not only the students but also
Oregon’s fiscal wellness. A study conducted in 2004 by The State of Oregon calculated the cost
to the State for different levels of schooling attained by its population (Angeli, 2006). The study
determined that high school drop outs cost the State an average of $8,460 per year and high
school graduates who did not further their education cost taxpayers $5,934 annually (Angeli,
2006). According to the US Bureau of Statistics (2011), individuals with disabilities are
employed at the rate of 17.8% as compared to their non-disabled peers who had an employment
rate averaging 63.8%. This places a financial incentive for the State of Oregon to increase the
education level of the student with disabilities population. The new achievement compact is the
OEIB’s accountability measure to ensure that SWD are making meaningful growth towards the
overall 40/40/20 goal.
In its initial inception in 2011, the achievement compacts have focused on a limited
number of outcomes to include markers such as diploma/degree completion, validation of skills
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 11

such as proficiency measures, and ultimately job placements (Oregon Education Investment
Board, 2011) . The key outcome categories were determined by the Oregon Education
Investment Board (OEIB); however, local school district boards were responsible for setting
their targets within each outcome category. Although state-wide assessments were included in
the achievement compacts, the original compact design relied heavily on local classroom-based
assessments aligned to state norms. The OEIB indicated that the assessments would “evolve”
over time raising questions about the validity and measurement of the instruments being used to
report student progress (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012a). Additionally, the OEIB
intended to adjust and refine the academic compacts over time raising the question if annual
performance data would be comparable from year-to-year. The OEIB expected that the
achievement compacts will result in a quality education model that produces strong student
outcomes while utilizing cost-effective strategies (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012a).
Local level boards were also provided the flexibility of creating additional measures of
student success to reflect their unique programs and populations (Oregon Education Investment
Board, 2012a). Since local boards were setting their own targets, many did not set aggressive
target marks that would hold them accountable for meaningful student growth. Due to the initial
low targets of performance, the newly appointed OEIB Chief Educational Officer at the time,
Rudy Crew, returned almost 50% of the achievement compacts (Crew, 2013). Crew followed
this in 2013 with a newly restructured achievement compact. This redesigned achievement
compact system is a two level system with Level One focusing on more traditional metric based
student data and Level Two focusing on regional articulation and community collaboration
(Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013). The regional compacts are entering into their first
pilot year in the 2013-2014 school year. Although the road map had been set with the newly
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 12

redesigned compacts, there continues to be a lack of specificity in what will constitute success or
how the achievement compacts will improve student performance.
Statement of the Problem
When examining students with disabilities (SWD), the data is currently grouped into a
broad category title of Disadvantaged Students. The Disadvantaged Students subgroup is
composed of English Language Learners, Low Social Economic Status students, and Students
with Disabilities (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013). Although for initial comparison
the students with disabilities group is combined into disadvantaged students, the data for students
with disabilities is also disaggregated into their own group, and districts are also required to
report out separately on subgroup performance. There is however no differentiation within the
students with disabilities group to differentiate between those with mild/moderate disabilities and
those with moderate/severe disabilities. These two groups have different trajectories for expected
progress, and they may require different indicators to reflect student achievement. Additionally,
as students with disabilities age up into post-secondary placements, data collection on this
subgroup is discontinued raising questions about the ability for the compacts to adequately
measure and ensure outcomes for post-secondary performance (Oregon Education Investment
Board, 2013). At this time, it is unclear how the achievement compact targets for students with
disabilities are going to be determined, if the proposed indicators of success will accurately
measure growth of this subgroup, and ultimately how the achievement compacts will influence
improvements in students with disabilities achievement.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 13

Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to: 1) determine if Oregon’s achievement compacts capture
indicators that adequately measure accountability for the students with disabilities subgroup; 2)
determine how districts are goal setting for students with disabilities subgroup; and 3) determine
how special education programs and models are being restructured to meet these goals.
Ultimately, an examination of these factors will help provide predictors if the achievement
compacts have a structure that likely will result in improved academic outcomes for students
with disabilities.
Research Questions
The specific 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?
2. What processes are district special education leaders engaging in to determine their
individual achievement goals for students with disabilities?
3. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach achievement
compact goals?
Importance of the Study
The primary importance of this study will be to inform OEIB on possible revisions to
compacts that may more accurately reflect accountability measures for SWD and provide
information about the process of initial goal setting and program restructuring based on the
introduction of the achievement compacts. The research will also provide district level
administrators with insight on the goal setting and program reform process which ultimately may
be examined for efficacy and provide insight to promising practices in program reform.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 14

Additionally, the research will provide a contribution to the knowledge base of broad literature
examining the issue of special education accountability.
Summary of Methodology
This study will provide a detailed analysis of special education accountability measures,
goal setting, and program reform in three large districts identified through a purposeful sampling
technique. Districts for study were selected based multiple criteria to include number of students
within the students with disabilities subgroup being over 750, the special education identification
rate of being under 13.5%, and the requirement of having one primary director responsible for
the oversight of the special education population. The field was then further narrowed based on
availability, accessibility, and willingness to participate in the interview process. After districts
were identified, background information such as overall district demographics and detailed
student with disabilities subgroup breakdowns was examined in order to better understand each
of the districts identified in the study. This information was used to provide the foundation to
understand the overall characteristics of each district and allow for the qualitative data gathered
through the interview process to be placed properly in context.
The primary data collection source was in the form of 1:1 interviews with the leaders of
special education programs. The interview protocol which focused specifically on special
education accountability, goal setting, and reform was piloted in March 2013 and refined for the
study. Each director was interviewed in person during October 2013, and limited follow-up
contact was made via e-mail to clarify details. Each interview was then transcribed and coded to
identify major categories and emergent themes. Finally, each case study will was analyzed
individually and in conjunction with the others to determine trends and divergences.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 15

Limitations
There are several limitations that need to be considered when reviewing the study’s
findings. The research was geographically bound based and the OEIB’s accountability system
which is limited to Oregon and therefore may lack broad applicability. Additionally even within
the State of Oregon, due to the small sample size, the findings may lack generalizability to other
school districts, especially those with varying demographic profiles. The primary method of data
collection will be a semi-structured interview process which leads to subjectivity in results and is
based on the perception of special education leaders which may not constitute a representative
sample. Finally, the achievement compacts have been re-designed each year since their
inception. Because of this constant change, it is likely that the achievement compacts in
upcoming years which will undergo revisions and changes which may alter the overall
implications of the study.
Delimitations
The time period for the study was focused during the summer and fall of 2013. This is
the second year of implementation of the achievement compacts and only the first year of the
OEIB’s redesigned achievement compacts and first pilot year of the regional compacts. The
study was also restricted to only the state of Oregon and more specifically to districts that had a
students with disabilities subgroup over 750 and under 5,000, an identification rate under 13.5%,
and a director of special education responsible for leadership decisions. The study’s overall
focus is only on students with disabilities.
Assumptions
Central to this study is the broad assumption that the unique and varied profiles that make
up students with disabilities subgroups can be measured in a standardized and meaningful way
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 16

on a macro level. Additionally, it is assumed that the methods and procedures that were utilized
in this study were appropriate, results were accurate, and that all documents reviewed for
analysis were assumed to be complete and accurate in the reporting. It is also assumed that the
responses of the special education leaders were honest and candid.
Definition of Terms
 40/40/20: Established by Senate Bill 253, this is Oregon’s goal to ensure that by 2025,
100% of students graduate from high school with 40% earning a bachelor’s degree or
higher, 40% completing an associate’s degree or post-secondary credential, and the
remaining 20% earning their high school diploma or equivalency (State of Oregon,
2011a).
 Achievement Compacts: Developed by the OEIB, this is the new accountability measure
in Oregon which builds an agreement between the OEIB and public educational
institutions to set rigorous academic achievement goals for all students (Oregon
Education Association, 2012a; Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012a).
 Annual Performance Report (APR): A federal requirement under IDEA, this is the report
that is provided to the US Department of Education Office of Special Education
Programs that provides information regarding how children with disabilities are
progressing (US Department of Education, 2011).
 Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): Mandated under NCLB, AYP is the measure of yearly
progress for students in all subgroups to meet incremental growth goals on the path of
reaching the goal of all students reaching academic proficiency (No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001, 2002).
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 17

 Education Service Districts (ESD): Oregon is organized in regional districts called ESD’s
which provide regionalized services for those districts that were too small to operate
economically efficiently (Oregon Schools Boards Association, 2005).
 Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Special education and services that are
provided at public expense for students with disabilities (Department of Education,
2006).
 Individual Education Plan (IEP): An individual education plan that is developed for each
student with a disability who qualifies for services under IDEA 2004 which lists goals,
objectives, and services in order to provide the student with a free and appropriate
education (US Department of Education, 2011).
 Individuals with Disabilities Act: Originally enacted in 1975 and most recently revised
in 2004, this federal legislation was designed to ensure that students with disabilities
received a free and appropriate public education (California Department of Education,
2012).
 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
(Department of Education, 2006).
 Measure 5: An Oregon specific tax measure that brought significant financial
ramifications for education. Measure 5 placed an absolute limit on school property tax of
$5 per $1000 spent for school operations which substantially limited the amount of
funding to schools (Conley & Picus, 2003; Eco Northwest, 2010; Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 18

 No Child Left Behind (NCLB): 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act which implemented standards-based reforms in an effort to increase
student performance and school accountability (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
2002).
 Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS): Oregon’s state wide education
assessment system.
 Oregon Education Investment Board: Established in 2011 by Senate Bill 909, the OEIB
is the board responsible for the oversight of a unified system of investment in public
education and delivering P-20 education to students (Oregon.gov, 2012b).
 Professional Learning Community (PLC): Collaborative teams that focus on the common
goal of improving student learning (R. DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010).
 Response to Intervention (RtI): Is a systematic intervention that is provided to all
students who are struggling in order to allow them to improve performance prior to
referring into special education. Up to 15% of special education funds can be used to
support RtI activities and under IDEA 2004 special education teams can utilize an RtI
model for identification of specific learning disability(D Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; US
Department of Education, 2011).
 Special Education Child Count (SECC): The system by which the State of Oregon
reports their child count data for federal requirements and provides fiscal and statistical
information for students with disabilities.
 State Performance Plans (SPP): A federal requirement under IDEA, annually each State
is required to provide reports to the Secretary on the performance of the State on the
progress of students with disabilities (US Department of Education, 2011).
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 19

 Students with Disabilities (SWD): In this study, the students with disabilities group are
those students who identified as requiring special education supports under IDEA 2004
eligibility standards.
Dissertation Organization
Chapter 1 of this study contains a broad overview of the research project on special
education accountability under the OEIB’s new achievement compact system. It includes an
introduction providing a brief synopsis of special education accountability and the OEIB’s
accountability structure for students with disabilities, a statement of the problem, the purpose of
the study, research questions, the importance of the study, a summary of methodology,
limitations, delimitations, assumptions, a definition of terms, and ultimately concludes in an
organizational overview of Chapters 1 through 5 to assist the reader in navigating the
dissertation.
Chapter 2 focuses on a review of literature which is centered on the following areas:
special education accountability, goal setting, special education reform, and history of Oregon’s
education history and political context.
Chapter 3 presents a detailed description of the methodology for the study. Included in
this section are the theoretical framework, the data collection process, and the data analysis
methodology.
Chapter 4 reports the findings from the study and includes demographic profile
information of districts, a summary of interviews with special education directors reflecting on
special education accountability, goal setting, and program development.
Chapter 5 focuses on providing a summary of study findings, overall research
conclusions, implications for the study, and areas of further research need.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 20

Chapter 2: Literature Review
In order to better provide contextual background and inform the study, a review of
literature has been conducted relating to current practices in special education accountability and
special education reform to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Additionally,
historical and political context for education reform within Oregon is detailed. The chapter has
been organized into the following sections:
1. Special Education Accountability: To begin the discussion of special education
accountability, the primary tenants of IDEA are reviewed. The conversation continues
with a look at Federal Mandates specified in IDEA for compliance monitoring to include
federal indictors with Indicators 8, 9, and 10 being specifically targeted as examples.
Student assessment data requirements under both NCLB and IDEA are discussed as well
as Oregon’s specific assessment program. The due process system of judiciary oversight
for compliance is discussed, and the section concludes with a look at the IEP as an
individual accountability tool.
2. Special Education Reform: Using the frame work of Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
evidence based reform strategies to improve student performance, each of the following
areas is examined in relation to special education and the implication for students with
disabilities to include: understanding the performance problem and challenge, goal
setting and data-based decision making, curriculum program and instructional vision,
professional development, use of time and extending time for struggling learners,
creating a collaborative and professional culture, instructional leadership and evidence
based practices.
3. Oregon Education Overview: Beginning with an overview of the basics of Oregon’s K-
12 education system and special education in Oregon, this section continues with an
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 21

overview of Oregon education reform history. Finally, current education reforms are
discussed in terms of political context and there is a discussion of Senate Bills 253, 909,
and 1581. The section concludes with an examination of the Oregon Education
Investment Board and achievement compacts.
Special Education Accountability
Over the past two decades, there has been an emerging trend of special education
accountability shifting from a compliance based model to an outcome based model (Albrecht,
Skiba, Losen, Chung, & Middelberg, 2012; Finn Jr, Rotherham, & Hokanson Jr, 2001; Harr-
Robins et al., 2012; McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003). To understand this shift in accountability
structure, it is necessary to analyze the interaction between IDEA and NCLB. This section opens
with a broad overview of the primary tenants of IDEA’s structure and accountability and
continues to discuss the Federal Compliance mandates associated with IDEA, the state
assessment requirements resulting from both IDEA and NCLB, an overview of the due process
judiciary oversight compliance function, and concludes with the IEP as an individual
accountability measure. Although heavily focused on compliance as the accountability tool, the
literature will also focus on the movement towards an outcomes based accountability model
looking specifically at special education outcome assessment measures and subgroup
performance. Throughout the discussion, Oregon specific state compliance structures and data
will be examined to more fully understand how the state operates within the federally mandated
guidelines.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To begin the conversation
regarding special education accountability, the primary federal legislation tool, Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), must be examined. Developed out of the Education for All
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 22

Handicapped Children Act of 1975, IDEA was initially passed in 1990 and then subsequently
revised in 1997 and most recently in 2004 (US Department of Education, 2011). Oversight of
special education programs and legislation has been dominated by compliance regulatory
systems (Finn Jr et al., 2001; Harr-Robins et al., 2012; McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003; Skiba et
al., 2008b). IDEA’s structure is built on a compliance framework that ensures districts are
following procedural regulations and that paperwork is processed correctly and on-time (Finn Jr
et al., 2001). As typically seen in traditional compliance models, the focus is on organizational
activities and processes rather than on outcomes. There is an overarching assumption in IDEA’s
design that the compliance model and correct implementation of process will actually result in
student progress (Finn Jr et al., 2001; Harr-Robins et al., 2012; McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003)
The primary purpose of IDEA is to guarantee that students with disabilities receive a
free and appropriate education (FAPE), due process protections are in place, and state and
federal monitoring procedures are established (Allbritten, Mainzer, & Ziegler, 2004). The basic
overarching tenant of IDEA is the concept of FAPE and ensuring that students with disabilities
receive an individualized educational program specific to their unique needs, that the student has
access to the general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment (LRE), and the
student is receiving educational benefit from the placement (Allbritten et al., 2004; US
Department of Education, 2011). In order to monitor that these rights are being afforded to
disabled students, there are several major accountability components built into IDEA to include
1), federal oversight for local education agencies (LEA’s) and states; 2) student assessment
requirements under both IDEA and NCLB; 3) legal compliance as adjudicated through due
process; and 4) the IEP as an individual student compliance measure.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 23

Federal Mandates. IDEA has developed a complex set of federal oversights to which
require both state and local education agencies must adhere. Local Education Agencies (LEA)
for example have the responsibility of monitoring their own compliance in accordance with
federal Part B guidelines in the following areas: 1) FAPE in the LRE; 2) Dispute Resolution
Participation; 3) Data Collection; and 4) Fiscal Oversight (Mahaley, Maisterra, & Boatright,
2012). There are then a variety of monitoring activities LEA’s engage in to ensure compliance to
include database reviews, on-site compliance monitoring, nonpublic monitoring, record reviews,
focused monitoring, dispute resolution activities, and LEA self-assessments (Mahaley et al.,
2012). At the state level, the federal government provides monitoring oversight by requiring
states to submit State Performance Plans (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) (US
Department of Education, 2011).
As a key accountability measure under IDEA, states are required to report on 20
indicators (see Table 2.1). These indicators are used as a measure of ensuring that states are
monitoring compliance. Although the indicators may be a measure of compliance, they are not
necessarily tied to outcomes for students with disabilities (Finn Jr et al., 2001; Harr-Robins et al.,
2012; McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003). To demonstrate the complexity of the compliance system
Indicator 8, 9 and 10 will be used as examples to show how this elaborate system of reporting is
implemented and concerns about the efficacy of the compliance system.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 24

Table 2.1
Special Education Federal Compliance Indicators
Indicator Topic Notes
1 Graduation Rates % of IEP youth graduating with a regular
diploma
2 Drop-Out Rates % of IEP youth dropping out of high school
3 Participation in Statewide Assessment % of children with IEP’s being assessed
4 Suspensions and Expulsions Rates %
5 Participation in General Education
(LRE)
% removed from class less than 21%
% removed from class greater than 60%
% served in separate schools, residential,
and home hospital.
6 Preschool Children in General
Education Settings (Preschool LRE)
% of children who are educated with
typically developing peers.
7 Preschool Improved Outcomes %who improved in:
Positive social emotional skills, acquisition
of knowledge and skills, and use of
appropriate behaviors.
8 Parent Involvement % parents who report school facilitated
participation
9 Disproportionate Representation in
Special Education that is a Result of
Inappropriate Identification
% of districts with disproportionate
representation of racial/ethnic groups in
special education based on inappropriate
identification.
10 Disproportionate Representation in
Specific Disability Categories
% of districts with disproportionate
representation of racial/ethnic groups in
specific disability categories
11 Timeframe between Evaluation and
Identification (Child Find)
% within 60-day timeline
12 Transition Between Part C and B % prior to 3
13 Post School Transition Goals IEP % 16+ with coordinated set of activities
14 Participation in Post-secondary 1 year
after graduation
Reporting of 1 year post-graduation
employment/education/activity
15 Timely Correction of Non-compliance Corrects as soon as possible and within one
year timeframe
16 Resolution of Written Complaints % within 60-day timeline
17 Due Process Timelines % within 45-day timeline
18 Hearing Requests resolved by
Resolution Sessions
%
19 Mediations Resulting in Mediation
Agreements
%
20 Timeliness and Accuracy of State
Reported Data
Timely submission of State Performance
Plan and Annual Performance Report
Note: Adapted from NICHCY. (2013b). Part B Indicators.http://nichcy.org/laws/idea/partb/indicators-partb

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 25

Indicator 8. Indicator 8 for example measures parent involvement in the IEP process.
Although there is ample evidence to support that parental involvement increases outcomes in
non-disabled students (LaRocque, Kleiman, & Darling, 2011), there is a lack of empirical
evidence showing a tie between parental involvement in IEP’s and student with disabilities
outcomes (Elbaum, 2012). States are required to report the percentage of parents who have
children receiving special education services who feel that the schools have facilitated parent
involvement (NICHCY, 2013b). Data taken from Elbaum’s (2012) study showed that one third
of parents in the United States felt that schools were not facilitating parent involvement in the
IEP process. Although the information is required to be reported, states have the discretion to
develop their own measure and take a variety of different approaches to data collection. Even
when using identical data sets, Elbaum (2012) determined that the reporting of the measure could
vary by up to 40 percentage points depending on the state’s reporting methodology. Since there
is a lack of consistent data collection or metric interpretation, the data is non-comparative
between states.
Examining data from 2011 reporting indicates that Oregon was out of compliance on
Indicator 8 receiving 34.7% of an expected 41% parental participation rate of Part B (Oregon
Department of Education, 2011f). The methodology Oregon uses to measure parent involvement
is a parent survey from the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring
(NCSEAM). Oregon Department of Education contacts with a private company to distribute and
analyze the NCSEAM results and school districts within Oregon are rotated through a cycle so
1/6
th
of districts are surveyed each year (Oregon Department of Education, 2011f). Due to
Oregon’s non-compliance, they are required to take corrective action. Oregon determined that
the corrective action would be comprised of the following five improvement activities:
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 26

1. ODE will provide districts with sample letters so parents can be encouraged to
participate.
2. Prior to distribution of NCSEAM survey, local groups will be contacted to promote the
survey and answer parent questions.
3. ODE will collaborate with Oregon Parent Training and Information Center to provide
resources, train in dispute resolution, train IEP partners to assist parents, provide an
annual IDEA conference, conduct RTI trainings, provide a high school transition
conference, and provide online transition materials.
4. ODE will host a fall IDEA conference and include parent engagement training.
5. ODE will provide a flyer to those districts participating in the survey rotation to be
distributed to parents. (Oregon Department of Education, 2011f)
Indicator 9 and 10. Indicators 9 and 10 are used to address the problem of minority
disproportionality in special education (NICHCY, 2013b). Special education has been criticized
for using the term disproportionality rather than a more clear and concise term such as
overrepresentation (Ford, 2012). Minority representation is typically found in those high-
incidence categories such as mild intellectually disabled, emotional disturbance, and learning
disabilities which are those categories that are typically first identified in the school context and
rely on the professional judgment of educators rather than the reliance on a medical diagnosis or
other physical marker (Ford, 2012; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Although there are multiple ethnic
groups that are over-represented to include most-commonly African American, Hispanic, and
American Indian, disproportionality is also complicated by the under-representation of some
ethnic groups in certain disability categories. For example, geographically based research rather
than national studies has shown that specific Hispanic groups are under-represented in special
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 27

education (Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). The patterns of placement can vary significantly depending
on how the data is interpreted (Ford, 2012; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011).
Indicator 9 focuses on the global over-identification based on inappropriate assessment
while 10 reflects over-representation of minorities in disability specific categories (NICHCY,
2013b). Research data has consistently shown that minority groups are over-represented in
special education (Albrecht et al., 2012; Ford, 2012; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Yet, it is the
norm for all states to report that no districts were found to be disproportionate on the Indicator 9
and Indictor 10 (Albrecht et al., 2012). In alignment with Albrecht’s findings, Oregon reports
that in 2011 no districts were out of compliance on indicator 9 and 10 (Oregon Department of
Education, 2011f). Although, there were 56 districts that were non-compliant on Indicator 10,
they were exempted due to “unique district characteristics based on guided self-analysis
worksheet”. A similar pattern was seen in Indicator 9 where 16 districts were found non-
compliant and then exempted based on either self-review or policy to practice review (Oregon
Department of Education, 2011f). Additionally there were districts excluded from reporting due
to low sample size numbers to include 14.8% of districts in Oregon for Indicator 9 and 20.8% of
districts in Oregon for Indicator 10. So although districts did have disproportionate findings,
none were reported moving forward to the federal level. This raises again the question of the
efficacy of the compliance marker. Unlike other indicators, there is a 15% fund penalty attached
to non-compliance of indicator 9 where LEA’s must spend 15% of their Part B funds for a
coordinated set of early intervention to prevent over-representation (Albrecht et al., 2012; Skiba
et al., 2008b)

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 28

Oregon’s 2011 Special Education Federal Compliance Indicator Results
Looking globally at Oregon’s compliance data, for the year 2011, Oregon was fully
compliant with only 4 of the 20 Indicators (see Table 2.2) (Oregon Department of Education,
2011f). This results in Oregon undertaking corrective actions to ensure that the compliance
measures are met and/or corrected within one year’s time.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 29

Table 2.2
Oregon’s 2011 Special Education Federal Compliance Indicators
Indicator Topic 2011 Oregon State Target
1 Graduation Rates 42.2% 67%
2 Drop-Out 4.3% Less than 3.6%
3 Participation
Assessment
AMO 1.7%
98.1 Math/98.4 ELA
Performance 40.9% ELA
Performance 29.9% Math
AMO 15%
95% Math/ELA
Performance 70% ELA
Performance 70% Math
4 Suspensions and
Expulsions
13.2% Less than 8.6%
5 LRE 71.8%*
10.7%
1.3%
70.0% or more
10.8 % or less
2.0% or less
6 Preschool LRE Not Reported Not Reported
7 Preschool Improved
Outcomes
74.3%
32.5%
60.5%*
81.2%
32.9%
60.5%
8 Parent Involvement 46.6%
34.7%
66%
41%
9 Disproportionate
Identification
0%*

0%

10 Disproportionate
Disability
Categories
0%* 0%
11 Child Find 98.6% 100%
12 Transition C-B 100%* 100%
13 Transition Goals
IEP
80.3% 100%
14 Post-secondary + 1
year
25.1%
55.3%*
71.8%*
26.0%
52.0%
68.0%
15 Non-compliance
correction
99.8% 100%
16 Resolution of
Written Complaints
0% 29.5%
17 Due Process
Timelines
65.5% 88%
18 Resolution Sessions 0% 29.5%
19 Mediation
Agreements
54.5% 88%
20 State Reported Data 100%* 100%
*Compliant with federal indicator
Note: Adapted from Oregon Department of Education. (2011f). Oregon Annual Performance Report (APR) 2011.
Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/initiatives/idea/sppapr/apr2011b.pdf.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 30

With the structure of IDEA’s compliance model, there are many obstacles for educators.
The amount of data that is required to report on federal indicators takes a significant amount of
time and financial resources (Scott, 2012). This time and money is going towards compliance
rather than serving students with disabilities. With a lack of research to support ties between the
indicators and student outcomes, it raises the efficacy of the compliance program.
State Assessment Data. Although the primary focus to this point has been on federal
compliance mandates, since the planning stages of NCLB and reauthorization of IDEA, there has
been an emerging trend of special education accountability shifting from a compliance based
model to an outcomes based model (Albrecht et al., 2012; Finn Jr et al., 2001; Harr-Robins et al.,
2012). To understand this shift in measures, it is necessary to analyze the interaction between
NCLB and IDEA. Although state assessment reporting and participation rates have always
played a component in IDEA accountability (US Department of Education, 2011), with the
passage of NCLB in 2001, the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 significantly changed the policy
and practices of subgroup performance and test measures for students with disabilities (US
Department of Education, 2011). The overarching goals of NCLB and IDEA are not aligned and
are contradictory (Allbritten et al., 2004; D. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Turnbull III,
Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Park, 2003). NCLB advocates that all students must reach a standard
level of proficiency where, in direct contrast, IDEA is built on the foundation that students with
disabilities have unique learning needs and require unique programming and individualized
expectations. The overarching goal of both pieces of assessment reporting legislation is to
improve students with disabilities performance with the rationale that schools will adopt
improved instructional practices which will result in improved outcomes for the subgroup (Harr-
Robins et al., 2012; Lauen & Gaddis, 2012). Although there is evidence to support that high
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 31

stakes accountability testing has positive effects on tests scores for the general population, there
is not a base of research literature to show the differential effects of high stakes testing on
students with disabilities (Lauen & Gaddis, 2012).
NCLB and IDEA mandated that schools included students with disabilities as a subgroup
within their accountability system and report on their performance (No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, 2002; US Department of Education, 2011). Districts are also required to meet their annual
yearly progress (AYP) for student with disabilities to show that students are making progress in
the general education curriculum (Allbritten et al., 2004). For many students with disabilities,
grade level testing may not adequately measure progress, especially if they are not being exposed
to the general education curriculum based on their individual education needs. Schools are then
placed in a position of having the students with disabilities subgroup failing to meet the targeted
proficiency level and placing the school into program improvement when students in fact may be
making growth based on their reasonably calculated educational achievement level (Allbritten et
al., 2004). Research has reflected that students with disabilities are a significant cause in whole
or in part for schools not meeting their AYP targets throughout the United States (Allbritten et
al., 2004; Harr-Robins et al., 2012). In Oregon in the 2010-2011 school year, the State failed to
meet AYP in both language arts and math for the students with disabilities subgroup (Oregon
Department of Education, 2011a). Since Oregon has many rural districts, it should be noted that
smaller special education subgroup size prohibited many districts from being required to report
AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup.
Because there is a general consensus that students with disabilities need to be accountable
for growth, the discussion turns to what is the appropriate tool to measure and monitor growth.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 32

In response to concerns over the appropriateness of grade level assessments, the US Department
of Education allowed for alternative assessment for students with disabilities. The following
describes three different alternative measure options available to states:
1) Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS): This is
intended for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Although based on grade
level content standards, they have reduced depth, breadth, and complexity.
2) Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Academic Standards (AA-MAS): This is for
students who are working on grade level standards but require additional time to master
content. They are less difficult than grade level assessments.
3) Alternative Assessments Based on Grade-level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS).
This is for students who require alternative formats or non-standard accommodations.
(Harr-Robins et al., 2012; Lemons, Kloo, Zigmond, Fulmer, & Lupp, 2012)
Alternative measures are factored into subgroup performance and AYP calculations; however the
scores between measures are not always comparable or commensurate based on the different
structure and level of material being assessed. NCLB allows the AA-AAS test to be
administered to 1% of the student population and the AA-MAS assessment to be administered to
up to 2% of the student population; hence often commonly referred to as the 1% and 2% test.
Oregon currently uses the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS)
assessment system as their primary accountability tool (Oregon Department of Education,
2013c). Students with significant cognitive disabilities have the ability to take Oregon’s
Extended Assessment which is a AA-AAS measure (Oregon Department of Education, 2013a).
The assessment measure is scored using Oregon’s Alternative Achievement Level Descriptors
(ALD’s). Oregon Department of Education indicates that these ALD’s refer to the state’s grade
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 33

level content that is “reduced in depth, breadth, and complexity” factoring in the students
development level (Oregon Department of Education, 2011d, 2013a). Although they use the
same category descriptors they are not comparable to the general assessment scores (Oregon
Department of Education, 2013a). As with 1% tests, Oregon is allowed to count 1% of the
districts population taking the Extended Assessment as proficient; any students beyond the 1%
would be counted as non-proficient (Oregon Department of Education, 2011e). In small districts
with less than 4 students taking the extended measure, students are not reported in AYP. Prior to
the development of the Extended Assessment which is based on academic standards, the
moderate severe population of Oregon took the Career and Life Role Assessment System
(CLRAS) which was designed in alignment to IDEA requirements and assessed life skills goals.
It was aligned to more functional activities and not state standards; therefore although it met
IDEA requirements, it did not meet NCLB requirements and was discontinued (Oregon
Department of Education, 2006). Oregon has not developed a 2% assessment tool; however prior
to 2006 like many other states, it was standard practice that students could access a “challenge
down” option where they tested at a lower level and still counted as part of district’s participation
and AYP rate (Oregon Department of Education, 2006). Students who take assessments which
are modified and use non-standard accommodations are considered non-participants and not
calculated in AYP (Oregon Department of Education, 2011e).
The overall objective of NCLB’s assessment requirement is straightforward; however, it
is often challenging to compare states’ performance on standardized measures due to the use of
different tests, different proficiency standards, differing models of progress monitoring, and
variations in reporting practices for subgroups (Harr-Robins et al., 2012). To look comparatively
at Oregon’s student with disabilities scores to the rest of the United States, it is useful to examine
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 34

data taken from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). When comparing the
trend, Oregon is in-line with the average US performance for student with disabilities
performance on the NAEP (Oregon Department of Education, 2012c) .
With the adoption of the Common Core, Oregon will switch their assessment tool
beginning in the 2014-2015 school year from OAKS to Smarter Balanced. Their AA-AAS
assessment measure is currently being developed by National Center and State Collaborative.
Due Process. Although IDEA lays the foundations for what states are required to provide
and loosely defines parameters of implementation, the legal system has helped to set precedence
to more specifically define terms and ultimately determines the compliance standard. For
example, IDEA specifies that students must receive educational benefit; however the US
Supreme Court Rowley Decision in 1982 remains the precedent for defining the term educational
benefit and sets the standard that individual education plans (IEP’s) must have reasonably
calculated goals and services to enable a student to make some meaningful progress
(McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003). In addition to providing clarity and guidance, the due process
procedures within IDEA help to resolve conflict between parents and school districts and provide
oversight to ensure that the district is following compliance procedures(Allbritten et al., 2004;
Oregon Department of Education, 2007c) .
Oregon has a low rate of due process complaints comparative to other states. Statistics
reflect that in 2011, Oregon Office of Administrative Hearings had only 22 hearing requests and
56 mediation only requests (Oregon Department of Education, 2011f). Compliance complaints
can also be made to the Oregon Department of Education directly which in 2011 Oregon
reported 35 complaints (Oregon Department of Education, 2011c). This is one of the built in
accountability protection measures IDEA offers. Although Oregon does not utilize the due
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 35

process procedures regularly, the procedures as implemented through the office of administrative
hearings and state educational agencies are a major oversight to compliance and accountability
for students with disabilities.
Individual Education Plan (IEP). In addition to the due process procedures which often
look at the legal compliance of the IEP, the student’s IEP itself serves as the primary individual
accountability tools under IDEA (D. Fuchs et al., 2010). The IEP is the document that provides
the roadmap to each student’s programming and is individually designed to allow the student’s
unique needs to be addressed. The general purpose of the IEP is to establish measurable goals
for the student and to clearly define the special education and related services that will be
provided to the student (NICHCY, 2013a). Mandated IEP components include: present levels of
functioning, annual goals which may include benchmarks and short-term objectives, special
education and related services, supplementary aids and services, program accommodations and
modifications, participation removed from general education, participation in assessments,
specifics regarding service delivery (frequency, duration, and location), and transition
planning/age of majority if required. The IEP must also discuss the student’s individual progress
and provide systematic reports of progress towards goals (NICHCY, 2013a).
Although the IEP was designed as an accountability tool, there are no rewards and/or
sanctions for students not meeting their goals outside of the possibility of due process filings
(Finn Jr et al., 2001; D. Fuchs et al., 2010). Because the tool has been designed for the
individual and is protected by student privacy, there is not the opportunity for external scrutiny
or the ability to aggregate data (D. Fuchs et al., 2010). This then limits the ability for the IEP to
be used as an effective compliance tool. Additionally, educators have struggled with the
complexity and multiple components of the IEP. The IEP process itself is time consuming and
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 36

labor intensive, and a study by Scott (2012) found that teachers felt that the cumbersome nature
of developing and holding mandated IEP meetings was taking teachers away from the classroom
and reduced their ability to provide student-focused support.
Special Education Accountability Summary. Accountability as applied to special
education is a complicated and multi-tiered level structure of IDEA compliance as well as
general education accountability mandates. The previous section examined IDEA compliance
structure; federal mandates to include a specific look at Indicators 8, 9, and 10; State assessment
data; due process; and the IEP as an individual accountability measure. In additional to looking
at the national compliance structure, Oregon was examined to determine how they fit into each
of the accountability mandates. Now that Oregon has waived out of NCLB and is embarking on
a new educational reform movement and accountability system, the next section of the literature
review will examine education reform and more specifically how it intersects with the field of
special education.
Educational Reform
The focus of educational change and accountability is ultimately on improving student
performance; therefore, educators should seek to draw upon practices that are aligned with
increasing student outcomes when engaging in reform. After a comprehensive review of
literature, Odden and Archibald (2006) outlined ten core strategies that were found to have
positive outcomes for students to include: 1) understanding the performance problem and
challenge; 2) setting ambitious goals; 3) changing the curriculum program and creating a new
instructional vision; 4) incorporating formative assessments and data-based decision making; 5)
implementing ongoing, intensive professional development; 6) using time efficiently and
effectively; 7) extending learning time for struggling students; 8) creating a collaborative,
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 37

professional culture; 9) promoting widespread and distributed instructional leadership; and 10)
establishing a professional organization that utilizes best practices. Although the study focused
on a review of general education literature, strong evidence points to the best practices in general
education being analogous to those in special education (D. Fuchs et al., 2010). The Odden and
Archibald (2009) framework will therefore be expanded to examine education reform and more
specifically narrowed to examine reform through the special education lens where appropriate.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. In order to make educational
improvements, the problems must be clearly identified so they can be systematically addressed.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), in order to diagnose performance gaps, three primary
causes must be analyzed. These causes include gaps in knowledge and skills, gaps in motivation,
and gaps in organization. In order for people to perform, they require not only the knowledge to
meet performance goals but also the ability to solve novel problems (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and skill gaps develop when employees are unable to do their job due to lack of
basic knowledge and skill level. Clark and Estes (2008) further break down the idea of
transferring knowledge into three categories: communication, procedure, and experience.
Communication is the transfer of information, procedures are those processes that allow people
to understand the program goals and how to reach those goals, and experience is characterized as
having previous success in similar situations (Clark & Estes, 2008). This is a higher level
application of skills which transfer to novel situations. Motivation gaps are those that stem from
a general lack of mental effort invested in a task and impacts working towards a goal and
persisting until a goal is achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational gaps are defined by
Clark and Estes (2008) as problems that arise out of not having the appropriate tools, processes,
and procedures. In order to develop concise improvement goals, the root cause of the problem
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 38

must be clearly articulated. Without clearly specifying the problem, organizational goals cannot
be achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Goal setting and data-based decision making. When examining education institutions,
research shows that in general, learning organizations do not understand how to effectively
engage in the goal setting process (Datnow, 2005; R DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006;
Education Trust, 2005). Leadership needs to articulate a clear vision that is translated to the
individuals implementing programmatic change. Goal expectations need to be concise and
measurable with appropriate benchmarking to measure progress (Clark & Estes, 2008). If goals
are too long-term and abstract, they cannot be effectively and efficiently implemented. When
setting goals, educators should begin the process with having high expectations for all learners
and verify that the goals are rigorous (R. Marzano, 2003). There is a clear link between
effective goal setting and student outcomes (Hattie, 2009). In order to set goals, organizational
data must be continuously examined and correlated to policies and student outcomes (R.
Johnson, 2002). The use of data to drive decision making is vital to setting goals in an effort to
bring about systematic reform. When districts tie goals to the use of district level data, there is a
correlation with both improved instruction and student outcomes (Datnow, Park, & Wholstetter,
2007; Feldman, Lucey, Goodrich, & Frazee, 2003).
Although summative data can be used for making district level decisions regarding
student learning outcomes and goal setting, the literature indicates that the use of formative
assessments are critical for teachers to examine patterns of student need to inform their teaching
practice (D. Johnson, Emanuel, Mack, Stodden, & Luecking, 2002; McIntire, 2005). Outcomes
for summative tests are also highly correlated to those of formative assessments if they are
structured to emulate each other (McIntire, 2005). Formative assessments allow teachers timely
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 39

feedback specific to the content being learned and allow for immediate adjustments in instruction
(R. Marzano, 2003). Research has consistently demonstrated that formative assessments are one
of the most valuable tools for teachers to promote student achievement (R DuFour et al., 2006;
Odden & Archibald, 2009; Stiggins & DuFour, 2009). The use of both formative and summative
data is critical when designing educational plans and goal setting for students with disabilities.
In addition to institutional goal setting, special education has to also engage in individual
goal setting for each student. Individual student goals should stem from formative, summative,
and observational data and should be tied specifically to content standards or other areas of
disability related deficit (Curran & Reivich, 2011; Shapiro, 2008). Clear learning objectives
should be embedded in the goals to ensure that outcomes are tied to student learning. Goals
should be reasonably calculated to ensure student growth with regular benchmarks for reporting
out on progress towards each goal (Curran & Reivich, 2011; Shapiro, 2008). Additionally, goals
need to be SMART: strategic/specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented, and time bound
(R. DuFour et al., 2010). When setting individual student goals, staff should maintain high
expectations for growth. Research consistently shows that teachers place a lower performance
expectation on those students that have traditionally performed poorly (R Marzano & Waters,
2009; Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009). This cycle of low expectations perpetuates poor
academic outcomes and widens the gap for students with disabilities.
Curriculum program and instructional vision. At the heart of educational reform is
curriculum and instruction referring to both the content being taught and the strategies being
used to deliver instruction. Consistent instructional vision with systematic delivery has proven
efficacy in improving student outcomes (Togneri & Anderson, 2003). Schools that have made
significant gains in performance have had major redesigns in their curriculum and instruction
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 40

programs (Odden, 2009). The breadth of educational standards required has made it virtually
impossible for districts to cover all content, and those that have shown the most success have
strategically honed in on key standards and ensured that standards were implemented with
fidelity and mastered by students (R DuFour et al., 2006; R. Marzano, 2003; Odden, 2009;
Odden & Archibald, 2009; Williams et al., 2005; Woody & Henne, 2006).
A central component to the standards-based reform movement is raising the achievement
through effective instruction as well as guaranteeing a viable curriculum to all students (R.
Marzano, 2003; Skiba et al., 2008a). There needs to be a consistent delivery and pacing of
instruction to ensure that the full intended standards determined by a district are also those
standards that are then implemented/taught and attained/learned by students (R. Marzano, 2003).
Since students with disabilities are participating in statewide assessment measures, the
assumption is that students with disabilities are receiving a comparable opportunity to learn
content being assessed on standardized measures (Kurz, Elliott, Wehby, & Smithson, 2010).
Because special education teachers are required to provide differentiated instruction based on
individual needs, not only are special education classrooms not covering the same content
standards as general education counterparts, but there is also variation within curriculum being
taught to students within the same classroom (Kurz et al., 2010). In addition to the standards
based curriculum, many special education students also require instruction in functional skills
which are those skills to enable to a student to learn to live, work, and play in the community
(Bouck, 2009). Although functional curriculums are currently at odds with NCLB, they are
often necessary to meet student’s unique needs and improve post-secondary outcomes which are
poor for special education students (Bouck, 2009). Special education students then have
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 41

additional material they are required to master, and the quality of special education instruction is
often not as strong as instruction within the general education classroom (Heward, 2003).
NCLB requires teachers to be highly qualified; however special education teachers often
are teaching content areas in which they are not highly qualified, especially at the secondary
level (Allbritten et al., 2004; Brownell, Ross, Colón, & McCallum, 2005). Special education has
both the highest shortage and turn-over rate in education (Steinbrecher, McKeown, & Walther-
Thomas, 2013). Research over the past two decades has reflected that there is a rate of 10-14%
of special education teachers at any one time that are not credentialed (Steinbrecher et al., 2013).
This is often exacerbated in high poverty, high need districts. Special education teaching
programs have had a history of teaching within a categorical design focusing on training to teach
specific disabilities and remediation rather than focusing first on a solid pedagogical foundation
and content specific knowledge (Brownell et al., 2005; Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson,
2010). Due to the large shortage of special education teachers, a number of alternative route
entries into special education classrooms have also been designed which do away with traditional
general education teacher training and focus on quick entry into the classroom (Sindelar,
Brownell, & Billingsley, 2010; Steinbrecher et al., 2013). Rather than following the traditional
conceptual teacher training which includes initial preparation, induction/mentoring, and then
ongoing professional development; these alternative route special education teachers are placed
into the classroom with little experience and preparation (Sindelar et al., 2010; Steinbrecher et
al., 2013). Due to concerns regarding content level expertise, IDEAs mandate for the least
restrictive environment, and research demonstrating that there are only slight gains and even
negative learning outcomes of students participating in special education (Brownell et al., 2005;
Kurz et al., 2010), there is a growing emphasis to educate students in general education
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 42

classrooms for larger portions of the day and utilize interventions such as response to instruction
(RtI) rather than placing students in special education classrooms (Friend, 2008; McLeskey,
Landers, Hoppey, & Williamson, 2011; McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012).
In the inclusive co-teaching model, special education students are provided instruction
within the general education setting by a highly qualified teacher and receive the opportunity to
access the full spectrum of general education standards (Cramer, Liston, Nevin, & Thousand,
2010; Gordon, 2006; Hang & Rabren, 2009; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002;
Volonino & Zigmond, 2007). Co-teaching allows students the delivery of a rigorous curriculum
which is vital to closing the achievement gap (Burris & Welner, 2005). It also provides
specialized support to allow differentiation and remediation with two educators, a general
educator and special educator, sharing in instructional responsibilities (L. Cook & Friend, 1995;
Friend, 2008). This model allows special education students to have the opportunity to access the
full curriculum and meets IDEA’s LRE mandate (McLeskey et al., 2012). In addition to the
increase in inclusive program designs, response to instruction (RtI) is being used to avoid
placements into special education.
RtI is a general education intervention used to deliver differentiated instruction to
students and allows for students to receive intervention without being identified as special
education (Hazelkorn, Bucholz, Goodman, Duffy, & Brady, 2010). RtI is a research-based
methodology of instruction and differentiation to help eliminate the gap between identification
and intervention eliminating a wait to fail model. IDEA 2004 allows RtI to be used as an
alternative identification route for qualification for services under the category of specific
learning disability (US Department of Education, 2011), and functions under the premise that an
intrinsic disorder is presumed if students make inadequate progress within the RtI structure
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 43

(Hoover, 2010). Although RtI is largely intended to be a general education function, studies
have shown that most of the instruction is falling within the realm of special education or
specific intervention teachers (Hazelkorn et al., 2010). And although there is overwhelming
evidence to student gains in RtI, there is mixed data to show if RtI actually reduces the
identification of students in special education (Wanzek & Vaughn, 2011). However RtI is
moving towards the concept of universal design which allows educational programs to be
developed which can be accessed by the maximum number of students regardless of their
individual needs or identification (Smith, Robb, West, & Tyler, 2010). Universally designed
education programs provide flexibility in instructional presentation, allows students alternative
ways to demonstrate knowledge, and provides appropriate accommodations to all learners rather
than just identified groups (Smith et al., 2010).
Professional development. A key strategy to improving student performance is
providing systematic, intensive, and ongoing professional development (Odden, 2009).
Professional development is ongoing activities that provide teachers with the skills they need to
assist students in meeting standards in a positive and lasting way (Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2010).
Professional development should be systematic and bring change in classroom practice, attitudes,
and learning outcomes (Supovitz & Turner, 2000). In professional development, the individual
teacher’s needs are addressed and activities are specifically tailored. In contrast to in-service
programs which are typically formal one-time training sessions planned by administration,
professional development is an on-going process which incorporates a process to include
building readiness, planning, implementing, allowing for teacher to utilize new skills, and
providing maintenance (Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2010).
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 44

Odden and Archibald (2009) reviewed relevant literature on structural features of
professional development programs and found that the following characteristics were associated
with best practices: Professional development should be school-based and job embedded; the
duration should not be limited to a one-time workshop but should be ongoing with a minimum of
100 hours of investment; participation and design should be collective and should be organized
by the faculty/site; the content should be focused and related to student learning; participants
should have the opportunity to actively engage in learning and teaching; and it should be aligned
to overall district standards and professional goals. In an era of limited educational resources,
effective suggestions for delivery of professional development training include pupil-free days,
the use of instructional coaches, and collaborative time during the day (Wei, Darling-Hammond,
Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009).
As part of the reform in NCLB, professional development opportunities that are
evaluated for positive impact on teacher effectiveness are mandated (Bellini, Henry, & Pratt,
2011). Due to ever changing federal laws, compliance mandates, due process influence on
policy, and changing disability demographic needs such as the rise in autism, special education
teachers have an additional layer of professional development required outside of the typical
pedagogical needs of professional development found in general education. Lack of support and
ongoing professional development has been cited as one of the causes of high attrition rates of
special educators (Kaufman & Ring, 2011). In order to provide teachers adequate professional
development, local education agencies not only need to ensure that they are providing strong
levels of support, but they also need to measure outcomes of professional development
programs (Bellini et al., 2011).
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 45

Another critical aspect to professional development for teachers is the development of
skills in general educators for providing effective instruction to special education students. With
the increase of inclusion of students with disabilities, general educators also require more
professional development in the area of special education needs and the ability to accommodate
curriculum and employ behavioral techniques (Bellini et al., 2011). Many general educators feel
that they are not adequately trained to meet the needs of students with disabilities and therefore
lack confidence in their abilities (Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2010). One key predictor in teaching
ability is the teacher’s confidence that they can positively impact student achievement; therefore,
it is imperative that general educators feel they have the skill set to effectively meet the needs of
students with disabilities (Jenkins & Yoshimura, 2010). The education of students with
disabilities can thereby be supported by ensuring high quality professional development for all
teachers who work with students with disabilities (Turnbull, Huerta, Stowe, Weldon, &
Schrandt, 2009).
Use of time and extending time for struggling learners. In order to maximize student’s
educational opportunity to have exposure to curriculum, school leaders need to ensure that
instructional time is protected and being used as effectively and efficiently as possible. There
has been a well-documented and clear link between student achievement and instructional time
(Vannest & Parker, 2010). However, in special education, non-teaching activities such as
paperwork relating to IEPs, consultation, assessment, and adaptation of materials decreases the
amount of time the special education teacher has to provide direct instruction. A comprehensive
time study done by Vannest et al.(2011) demonstrated that special education teachers spend
almost an equal amount of time on IEP related paperwork (17%) as they do in student instruction
(20%). With direct instruction occurring only 20% of the day and direct instruction combined
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 46

with other educational support occurring 37% of the time, special education students are not
receiving an efficient delivery of instruction (Vannest et al., 2011). Learning deficits are
typically not based on a student’s inability to learn, but the student’s inability to learn at a fast
enough rate. If teachers are not maximizing instructional time, the achievement gap for students
with disabilities will increase.
Not only is efficiently using time critical, but it is also imperative that the instruction
delivery be effective (Konrad, Helf, & Joseph, 2011). Students with disabilities have the need to
learn more material given the same amount of instruction if they hope to close the gap with their
peers (Skinner, 2010). Skinner (2010) defines instructional efficiency as teaching and classroom
managing in a style that will yield desired outcomes using only the time, effort, and resources
necessary. As part of efficient teaching, there needs to be planning time for instruction for
teachers to get organized and obtain necessary resources. In the delivery of instruction, teachers
should chose those research proven techniques that have been shown to increase student’s
learning rates such as: increasing number of learning trials, efficient groupings, review, direct
modeling, and repeated opportunities for feedback and practice (Skinner, 2010). In order to deal
with the competing demands of a full curriculum, interventions need to utilize the most effective
and efficient learning delivery strategies in order to ensure struggling learners are maximizing
their time to allow for reduction in the performance gap. By providing extended learning time for
struggling learners, student performance will increase by accommodating for successful mastery
of content due to a slower rate of learning (Darling-Hammond, Alexander, & Price, 2002; R
DuFour et al., 2006; Odden, 2009). In order to make additional time for learning, extended day
programs, summer school, academic remediation in lieu of electives, and tutoring can be
implemented.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 47

Creating a collaborative, professional culture. As a means of increasing student
performance, a school’s culture needs to be collaborative and have shared leadership. The
development of professional learning communities exemplifies this type of a school culture.
Professional learning communities (PLC) are composed of collaborative teams that focus on the
common goal of improving student learning, PLC’s successfully shift the focus of discussion
from teaching to learning (R. DuFour et al., 2010), and hold promise for both building capacity
within a school and for sustainable improvement (Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas,
2006). Characteristics of PLC’s include having a shared vision and values, taking collective
responsibility for outcomes, engaging in personal inquiry, building a collaborative culture, and
promoting both individual and group learning (Stoll et al., 2006). Research on effectiveness has
consistently found that PLC’s are a key factor in school effectiveness, productivity, teaching
practice improvement, and student learning outcome increase (Blanton & Perez, 2011; Darling-
Hammond, 2002; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). The major tenants
of a healthy and productive PLC group include: a strong focus on learning, collaborative culture,
engagement in collective inquiry and best practices, action oriented movement, commitment to
continuous improvement, and ultimately a results orientation (R DuFour et al., 2006; Fullan,
2003; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Stiggins & DuFour, 2009).
There is virtually no research looking at the effect of PLC’s for students with disabilities
(Blanton & Perez, 2011). In fact, even when studies have been conducted looking at overall
culture of a PLC school, special education has been excluded (Blanton & Perez, 2011). Because
there is strong evidence that those teachers who work in professional learning communities
improve their classroom practices which are translated into student learning improvements
(Blanton & Perez, 2011; R DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Vescio et al., 2008), it is hypothesized that
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 48

there would be positive effects for students with disabilities as well (Blanton & Perez, 2011).
Teachers who participate in PLC’s also assume a greater level of responsibility for struggling
learners which benefits special education students (Blanton & Perez, 2011). Although PLC’s
have not been studied in the context of special education, they could also be used to serve as a
means of integrating special education teachers into the larger culture. Due to the small number
of special educators on campus sites compared to general educators, they can become isolated
and marginalized (Blanton & Perez, 2011). By involving special educators into PLC groups,
they would then become more centralized to the teacher community.
Instructional leadership. When examining educational change, the education leader is
the crucial player to ensure that the change process is implemented and sustained. Fullan (2001)
believes that leaders need to be conceptual thinkers taking in the broad picture and looking to
transform the organization through their interactions. Effective leaders require the following
traits to effectively implement system changes through distributed leadership demonstrating 1) a
strong sense of purpose, 2) an understanding of the change process, 3) the ability to create and
improve relationships, 4) the ability to create and share knowledge, and 5) the ability to
cohesively make decisions (Fullan, 2002).
Although quality leaders are essential to the change process, the most effective changes
are not centered around one leader (Spillane, 2006) but rather are a result of groups working as a
cohesive force to build a unified vision (R. Marzano, 2003). In order to make a meaningful
educational change, there needs to be a shift in culture and acceptance by a network of educators.
By developing a change plan that is not leader specific, there are greater outcomes for sustained
and organizational change (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Harris & Spillane, 2008).
Because the focus of leadership should ultimately be on the outcomes and well-being of students
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 49

(Hancock & Lamendola, 2005), teachers ultimately need to maintain the authority to make
critical decisions regarding individual student progress while leadership works to provide
support and promote change (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Parker, 2006; Ramirez, 2010).
Special education leadership brings about a host of unique challenges. Special education
administrators in general have a wide myriad of responsibilities and challenges that come with
implementing IDEA and navigating conflict (McHatton, Glenn, & Gordon, 2012; Thompson,
2011). A higher level of emotional exhaustion is seen with special education administrators
when compared to other education professionals; these levels are even higher than those found in
other emotionally exhausting fields such as medical and mental health professions (Thompson,
2011). Although IDEA 2004 does not directly reference the requirements of a highly qualified
special education director, the Council for Exceptional Children (2009) lists specific
competencies in six standards which special education administrators should possess (Boscardin,
McCarthy, & Delgado, 2009). The six standards are:
Standard 1: Leadership and Policy
Standard 2: Program Development and Organization
Standard 3: Research and Inquiry
Standard 4: Evaluation
Standard 5: Professional Development and Ethical Practice
Standard 6: Collaboration

These standards provide the base knowledge that would be expected for a special education
director and require a high level of training and experience to attain.
As with special education teachers, there is a nationwide shortage of qualified special
education administrators. Congress has funded preparation for special education administrators
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 50

through doctoral level programs since 1959 (Smith et al., 2011). The Office of Special
Education (OSEP) continues to award projects that support students in special education doctoral
pursuits specifically due to the lack of special education leaders (Smith et al., 2011). In
upcoming years, as the baby boomers continue to retire, this problem will be compounded
(Thompson, 2011). It is critical that special education has strong leaders since effective
leadership is highly correlated with student success (Boscardin et al., 2009).
Evidence based practices. As part of being a professional organization, decisions need
to be based on research obtained from literature, best practices, and successful practioners
(Odden, 2009). Educational organizations should also not look to re-invent the wheel but rather
work collaboratively with other professionals to build upon already established effective
practices. Cook and Cook (2011) define evidence-based practices as those instructional
strategies that meet specific criteria related to research design, quality, quantity, and effect size
and have the potential to improve student outcomes. There are challenges with identifying
evidence based practices within special education because they may not have been subject of an
evidence-based review, the research may lack high-quality with appropriate design to determine
impact, and potentially the research may show minimal or negative effects on student outcome
(B. Cook & Cook, 2011). Additionally, because of the complexity and variability of special
education students, some practices may not transfer to various populations (Odom et al., 2005).
Even with these challenges, there is ample literature to influence practice and yet there is still
the research-to-practice gap and the difficulty of translating research findings into classroom
practice (B. Cook & Odom, 2013).
Research has consistently demonstrated that special education practitioners have
reported using instructional practices shown by research to be ineffective with similar or greater
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 51

frequency than some research-based practices (B. Cook & Odom, 2013; Heward, 2003).
Evidence based practices represent the gold standard of empirical validation; however common
sense also needs to be taken into account when making instructional decisions (B. Cook &
Cook, 2011). Research demonstrates that teachers are consistently not using evidence based
practices and rather choose instructional practices that are familiar to them rather than focusing
on outcomes (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009; Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002).
There are resounding myths in special education that also cause a reluctance for the use
of evidence based practices and limit the advancement of the field (Heward, 2003). For
example, Heward (2003) cites myths commonly held by special educators such as eclecticism is
good, structured curriculum impedes learning, teaching discrete skills trivializes education and
ignores the whole child, drill and practice limits students’ deep understanding and dulls their
creativity, teachers do not need to measure student performance, students must be internally
motivated to really learn, building students’ self-esteem is a teacher’s primary goal, teaching
students with disabilities requires unending patience, every child learns differently, and a good
teacher is a creative teacher as limiting the professionalism of special education. Ultimately,
the idea of what constitutes effective teaching in special education should not be evaluated on
what it looks like but rather on the results it produces (Heward, 2003).
Educational reform summary. When embarking on educational reform, leaders should
draw upon practices that are aligned to increasing student outcomes. The previous section
examined educational reform by using the ten core strategies of increasing student achievement
as outlined in Odden and Archibald (2009) to include: understanding the performance problem
and challenge, goal setting and data-based decision making, curriculum program and
instructional vision, professional development, use of time and extending time for struggling
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 52

learners, creating a collaborative and professional culture, instructional leadership and evidence
based practices. These proven results producing reform strategies were discussed in relation to
special education and the implication for students with disabilities. When addressing education
reform in Oregon, Oregon’s unique education history and political context will need to be
examined to frame the current OEIB achievement compact as an accountability measure.
The Basics of Oregon’s K-12 Education System and Special Education
In order to better understand Oregon’s public education system, the following overview
will provide a snapshot of Oregon’s K-12 public education composition, the structure of
Oregon’s school governance, Oregon’s school financing to include special education, and an
overview of Oregon’s students with disabilities population. Oregon currently has 197 public
school districts that are configured as unified, component elementary, union high or unified
elementary districts. There are 1,296 public schools serving 561,328 K–12 students (Oregon
Secretary of State, 2013a). Based on 2011 data, 50.7% of students qualified for free and reduced
lunch, 33.7% of students were minority, 14.2% received special education services, and about
11% of students were identified as English Language Learners (EL) (Oregon Secretary of State,
2013a). This large public education system is governed by a State Board of Education and
Department of Education.
Until the passage of Oregon’s Senate Bill 1581 in 2012, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction was responsible for the oversight of K-12 education (Oregon Schools Boards
Association, 2005; State of Oregon, 2012). Established by Article VIII of the Oregon
Constitution, this position is an elected four-year term position and serves as the administrative
officer for the State Board of Education and the Department of Education. The State Board of
Education is comprised of a seven member board appointed by the governor in four year term
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 53

increments. The board represents five congressional districts and two representatives from the
entire state (Oregon Schools Boards Association, 2005). The Department of Education’s main
purpose is to provide assistance and guidance to local school districts, each of whom are
governed by their own school board. As will be discussed later in this section, the
Superintendent of Public Instruction is now overseen by the Oregon Education Investment
Board’s Chief Education Officer (State of Oregon, 2012).
In addition to school districts, Oregon has broken up into regional districts called
Education Service Districts (ESD). ESDs were established to provide regionalized services for
those districts that were too small to operate economically efficiently, and ESDs have the
authority to provide both facilities and services to school districts such as special education
services, EL services, early childhood services, media services, home schooling, purchasing,
curriculum materials, facilitation of state assessment, and training (Oregon Schools Boards
Association, 2005). There are currently 19 ESD’s in Oregon (Oregon.gov, 2013c). ESDs are
governed by seven-member boards of directors elected to four-year terms; the major source of
funding for ESDs stems from property taxes (Oregon Schools Boards Association, 2005;
Oregon.gov, 2013c). Although most special education students receive services in their home
school’s least restrictive settings, ESDs provide special education services for rural and low
incidence disabilities. The State also services some low incidence students in regional programs
for disabilities such as visual impairment (Oregon Schools Boards Association, 2005). The ESD
structure was designed to help reduce overall education spending.
Oregon’s overall education budget for K–12 education in fiscal year 2009 was $6.1
billion of which $671 million was funded by the federal government (Oregon Secretary of State,
2013a). Examining the fiscal structure for special education in Oregon, for the 2010 Fiscal year,
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 54

the total annual special education funds received by Oregon was $482 million dollars with $136
million from federal monies and $345 million dollars from State monies (Oregon Secretary of
State, 2010). The annual cost per-pupil for special education services as estimated in the
2008/2009 school year was as follows: Early Intervention Pre-school $11,204 , mild/moderate
$6,698, and moderate/severe (restrictive programs) $30,768 (Oregon Secretary of State, 2010).
Despite the high per pupil expenditure for special education students, this subgroup is
consistently underperforming when compared to their general education peers.
Based on a data review of Oregon’s state wide assessment measure, Oregon Assessment
of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS), students with disabilities, are significantly underperforming
their peers across grade levels and content area (Oregon Department of Education, 2012a). When
examining those students who have met or exceeded expectations comparatively between all
students and students with disabilities, there is a 36% gap in math, 39% gap in reading, 33% gap
in science, and 45% gap in writing based on the 2011-2012 OAKS scores (Appendix A) (Oregon
Department of Education, 2012a). Additionally, students with disabilities have the lowest
graduation rates of all sub-groups and over the past three years there has consistently been more
than a 20% gap in graduation rates between all students and students with disabilities. Ensuring
that the achievement gap is closed for students with disabilities impacts not only the students, but
also Oregon’s fiscal wellness. A study conducted in 2004 by The State of Oregon calculated the
cost to the State for different levels of schooling attained by its population (Angeli, 2006). The
study determined that high school drop outs cost the State an average of $8,460 per year and high
school graduates who did not further their education cost taxpayers $5,934 annually (Angeli,
2006). According to the US Bureau of Statistics (2011), individuals with disabilities are
employed at the rate of 17.8% as compared to their non-disabled peers who have an employment
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 55

rate averaging 63.8%. This places a financial incentive for the State of Oregon to increase the
education level of the student with disabilities population. Oregon is currently engaging in a
significant reform movement having obtained a waiver from NCLB which will work toward
improving outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities. In order to better
understand the new wave of reform efforts, the following section will reflect on Oregon’s
educational reforms over the past twenty years.
An Overview of Oregon Education Reform History
When looking globally at Oregon’s education reform efforts, Oregon has been
progressive and often considered a pioneer state in regards to education reform (Conley & Picus,
2003; Kruegar, 2006; Louis et al., 2008; Vanderstek, 2009). Oregon adopted standards based
accountability prior to the passage of NCLB and has a history of linking of striving to link
educational expenditures to outcomes(Vanderstek, 2009). Oregon’s overall achievement
outcomes when compared to other states are commensurate with US averages; yet, Oregon has
consistently pushed forward with education reform to improve outcomes (Oregon Business
Council, 2000). Two major events that impacted Oregon’s education system happened almost
simultaneously in 1990/1991 and represented a significant shift in Oregon’s educational funding
and policy. The first event was the passage of Measure 5 in 1990 and the second was the
passage of the Oregon Education Act in 1991. After a review of these two influential game
changers, the Oregon Quality Education Model (OQEM) will be discussed, as well as Oregon’s
navigation through NCLB mandates to include Oregon’s recent NCLB waiver.
The passage of Measure 5 brought significant financial ramifications for education. It
placed an absolute limit on school property tax of $5 per $1,000 spent for school operations
(Conley & Picus, 2003; Eco Northwest, 2010; Venezia & Kirst, 2006). This substantially limited
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 56

the amount of funding to schools. It also changed the funding structure from a strong tradition of
local funding and shifted to state controlled funding (Conley & Picus, 2003; Venezia, Callan,
Finney, Kirst, & Usdan, 2005). The State equalized funding between high-property value
districts and low-property value districts which essentially increased per-pupil spending in low-
property value districts while keeping high-property value districts at level rates (Conley &
Picus, 2003). This created a wide span in State supplied funds to districts ranging from 5% to
90% depending on the amount of local funds raised. Measure 5 combined with a general decline
in Oregon’s economy brought significant ramifications to educational spending and required a
trend of cuts (Eco Northwest, 2010; Venezia & Kirst, 2006). As funds decreased, Oregon
simultaneously increased the performance expectations of schools.
The Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century was adopted in 1991 and required the
development of state standards, assessments, and established the certificates of initial mastery
(CIM) and advanced mastery (CAM) (Venezia et al., 2005; Venezia & Kirst, 2006). The CIM
and CAM represented early efforts in establishing standards based criteria for the obtainment of
a high school diploma (Conley & Picus, 2003; Louis et al., 2008; Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
Although terminated with the adoption of new high school graduation standards in 2007, the
CIM and CAM not only required students to meet basic academic levels of achievement, but the
measures also ensured that students were linking academics to post-secondary outcomes and
career readiness (Oregon Department of Education, 2007a). The Oregon Education Act also
mandated such things as extending the school year to 220 days, development of alternative
learning centers, publishing of Oregon Report Cards, and statewide accountability measures
(Engel, 1992). Evaluated by the Oregon’s Business Council’s (2000) K-12 Education task force,
the Oregon Educational Act was determined to have successfully improved student outcomes
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 57

and school accountability. Recommendations continued to point to the need for increased
student performance and career readiness. As expectations for districts increased and funding
decreased, the Oregon Legislature sought to determine the most effective and efficient means of
funding a quality education to Oregonians.
In order to develop a systematic way to ensure adequacy, the Oregon Legislative Council
on Quality Education in 1997 began to create a tool to assist policy makers with the cost
requirements of a quality education and education expenditures (Calvo, Picus, Smith, & Guthrie,
2000). Oregon adopted the Oregon Quality Education Model, a funding mode designed to link
resources to outcomes (Conley & Picus, 2003; Oregon Business Council, 2000). Built on three
categories of prototype schools, the OQEM model looks at current service level schools
comparing against full implementation prototypes. An independent review of the model in 2000
by Management Analysis and Planning Incorporated found the model to be detailed, appropriate,
and in alignment with other state’s funding models (Calvo et al., 2000). As Oregon was
beginning their reform efforts focused on adequacy and investment, the federal landscape began
to change with the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
With the passage of NCLB in 2001, Oregon had to meet the new federal reporting
requirements to include making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and ensuring that staff was
highly qualified. With the goal of having schools engaged in continuous improvement efforts,
NCLB set the lofty goal of having 100% of students scoring proficiently by 2014 (No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, 2002). The structure of the improvement measure required states, districts,
and schools to increase their performance annually. In Oregon, the increase was approximately
10% per year. In 2003, 72% of Oregon schools met AYP and this number had decreased to 54%
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 58

in 2011 (Oregon Department of Education, 2011b). This decrease represents a response to the
increased AYP targets rather than a decline in student performance.
Because each state determined their own methods for student performance, comparison is
difficult between states. A comparison of Title 1 Schools between California and Oregon
demonstrated that 7% of Oregon’s Title 1 schools were in program improvement as compared to
46% of California’s Title 1 Schools (Oregon Department of Education, 2011b). The increase in
schools not meeting AYP is a national trend and not specific to Oregon (Center on Education
Policy, 2010). Although not meeting benchmarks in AYP, Oregon has consistently improved
their percentage of highly qualified teachers. Beginning with a baseline of 82% of highly
qualified teachers in 2001, Oregon’s 2011 rate increased to 98% of all teachers meeting highly
qualified status (Oregon Department of Education, 2011b). Additionally, there is little spread
between the qualifications in high poverty schools compared to low poverty schools. For
example at the secondary level in 2011, 95.84% of teachers were highly qualified in high-
poverty schools as compared to 96.25% in low-poverty schools (Oregon Department of
Education, 2011b). Oregon Department of Education has accomplished this by demanding that
all Title 1, Part A schools have 100% of teachers teaching core subjects are highly qualified.
They have demanded that districts who do not meet targets for two consecutive years reassign
teachers, engage in professional development, and require teachers to pass state credentialing
exams (Oregon Department of Education, 2011b).
To redefine accountability in Oregon Education moving away from standardized testing
and the punitive sanctions of NCLB, Oregon applied for a NCLB waiver in February, 2012 and
was awarded a NCLB waiver on July 18, 2012 (Oregon Department of Education, 2012b;
Oregon Education Association, 2012b). As will be discussed in the next section, the new
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 59

accountability system stemmed from legislative reform, the creation of the Oregon Education
Investment Board, and the development of an achievement compact system.
Current education reform. To understand the current wave of education reforms in
Oregon, it is necessary to look at current state leadership. John A. Kizhaber is serving his third
term as Governor of Oregon. Having come from an early background in medicine, Kizhaber
joined the Oregon Legislature in the House of Representatives in 1978. He then served three
terms in the Oregon State Senate beginning in 1980 and held the title of Senate President from
1985-1993 (Oregon Secretary of State, 2013b; Oregon.gov, 2013a). Kizhaber initially was
elected Governor of Oregon in 1994 and served two terms ending in 1998. During this period,
he was involved heavily in health care reform and is largely responsible for the Oregon Health
Plan which was developed with the intent to provide a cost effective health care system to
Oregon (Oregon Secretary of State, 2013b; Oregon.gov, 2013a). After a twelve year break from
public service, Kizhaber then returned for a third term as Governor when he was elected in 2010
and ran on a platform of improving Oregon’s economy and developing a highly trained
workforce. Kizhaber has spearheaded a reform movement to integrate and improve Oregon’s
education system in order to produce an educated and competitive workforce and ultimately
improve Oregon’s economy (Oregon Secretary of State, 2013b). In his 2011, State of the
Schools address, Kizhaber urged Oregon to have the courage to change an outdated system and
adopt a results oriented system designed for the 21
st
century stating, “the path forward in this
new century requires innovation, requires the willingness to challenge assumption, requires the
courage to change,” (Cooper, 2011). Kizhaber has been a critical driving force behind three key
pieces of legislation that represent Oregon’s recent venture into education reform. Senate Bill
253, 909, and 1581 established a new educational goal of 40/40/20 for Oregon, established the
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 60

Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) headed by a Chief Educational Officer, and
established the use of Achievement Compacts as a new accountability measure.
Senate Bill 253 and 40/40/20. Passed in 2011, Senate Bill 253 details the path of
Oregon’s educational mission to a 40/40/20 goal. This rigorous goal is to ensure that by 2025,
100% of students graduate from high school with 40% earning a bachelor’s degree of higher,
40% completing an associate’s degree or post-secondary credential, and the remaining 20%
earning their high school diploma or equivalency (State of Oregon, 2011a). The bill is intended
to extend educational opportunities beyond high school and provide access to education for
diverse learners. It advocates for the continued sustainment of higher education institutions
which provide research critical to Oregon’s economic growth and work to solve societal issues
(State of Oregon, 2011a).
Senate Bill 909: Oregon Education Investment Board. In 2011, the Oregon Education
Investment Board (OEIB) was established by Senate Bill 909 with the intent to create a unified
P-20 education system to prepare Oregonians for careers to support Oregon’s economy
(Oregon.gov, 2012b). The OEIB is chaired by the Governor and charged with creating a unified
education system which focuses state investment on student achievement and works to build
state-wide education support systems (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2011). The OEIB is
responsible for ensuring that all students meet education outcomes determined by the state
(Project ALDER, 2011; State of Oregon, 2013). It specifically requires:
 The development of an education investment strategy directly tied to achievement
outcomes at all levels of education from early childhood through university.
 Appointment of a Chief Education Officer to provide oversight of a unified education
system from early childhood through university.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 61

 Development of a state-wide accountability database.
 Establishment of an Early Learning Council and restructure early learning services.
 Provision that there will be ongoing communication between OEIB and the Oregon
Legislature. (State of Oregon, 2013)
The OEIB self-describes their management style as “Tight-Loose” meaning that the
OEIB maintains “tight” control in the expectation that educational entities will meet their
established outcomes; however, the OEIB is “loose” allowing autonomy for the planning of how
the outcomes will be achieved (Oregon.gov, 2012a).
Senate Bill 1581- Chief educational officer. One of the charges for the OEIB under
Senate Bill 909 was to appoint a Chief Education Officer (CEdO) who has the primary
responsibility for oversight of the public integrated education system from pre- kindergarten
through college and career readiness (Project ALDER, 2011; State of Oregon, 2011b). Senate
Bill 1581 codifies the position of CEdO for the OIEB giving the position direct direction and
control over the following positions (State of Oregon, 2012):
 The Commissioner for Community College Services.
 The Chancellor of the Oregon University System.
 The executive director of the Oregon Student Access Commission.
 The Early Childhood System Director.
 The executive director of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission.
 The Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction.
In May, 2012, Dr. Rudy Crew was appointed as the CEdO of the OEIB (Oregon.gov,
2013b). Dr. Crew, a thirty year veteran in public education, had previously served as Chancellor
of the New York City School District and as Superintendent of the Miami Dade school district
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 62

(Oregon.gov, 2013b). As evidenced by the CEdO deliverables, the responsibilities falling on
the CEdO are vast and include (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012b):
 The design, organization, and implementation of a P-20 system in Oregon.
 The development of an outcome based budget framework.
 Oversight of the implementation of Achievement Compacts for all public education
institutions.
 Development of a longitudinal data base.
 Oversight and reorganization of early childhood services.
 Direct the Higher Education Coordinating Commission and standardize board terms for
Oregon University System.
Crew conceptualizes the OEIB’s work as a, "set of initiatives that represent the first foray
into the field of investment (Crew, 2013).” His overarching task is to look at education from a
business model and marry pedagogy with finances to get the best possible outcome for students
(Crew, 2013). Dr. Crew believes Oregon’s education system needs more than mere reform, and
he is striving towards a transformation of Oregon’s education system (Crew, 2013). A major
change the OEIB is implementing is to change the accountability structure from previous NCLB
assessment based accountability to a mutually designed accountability system through the use of
achievement compacts.
After one year in his post, Rudy Crew resigned as Chief Education Office to become
President of Medgar Evers College in New York. He was replaced by Nancy Golden, a long
time educator who served as the Superintendent of Springfield, Oregon (B. Hammond, 2013). In
an October 7, 2013 memo to Superintendents and Board Chairs, Golden discussed the need for
collaboration between the State and districts to work jointly to set ambitious goals for students.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 63

Although all districts should strive for rigorous goals, the memo was clear that compacts would
not be rejected if they did not meet State specifications. Instead, there would be conversations to
work collaboratively to help understand the reason why specific goal targets were set (Golden,
2013).
Senate Bill 1581- Achievement Compacts. The OEIB has reconfigured Oregon’s
accountability model from the traditional test-based scoring system of accountability to a NCLB
waiver method of accountability using achievement compacts where local boards determine their
own target growth goals (Oregon Education Association, 2012b). Memorialized in Senate Bill
1581 (State of Oregon, 2012), the achievement compact structure is designed to:
 Allow for two-way goal setting between the state and education institutions,
 Devise a mechanism to allow intentionality in budgeting at the local level tying outcomes
to budgets, and
 Provide comparison data for progress between and within districts (Oregon Education
Investment Board, 2011).
The achievement compacts are agreements between the OEIB and public educational
institutions (Oregon Education Association, 2012a; Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012a).
Although the compacts range from early childhood to post-secondary institutions, this review
will focus on K-12 services in alignment with the research topic. The achievement compacts are
structured around learning stages which include students being ready for school, ready to apply
basic reading and math skills, ready to think strategically and problem solve, reading to engage
in college and career training, and finally, ready to contribute to college and career training
(Oregon.gov, 2012a). The structure of the compact is provided by the OEIB who articulates what
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 64

specific outcomes each district is expected to address. Districts are then responsible for setting
goals and communicating a plan to the OEIB on how they will reach the indicators.
The first round of achievement compacts were due proceeding the 2012-2013 school
year. The initial phase of goal setting in the first round of achievement compacts was
contentious. The first round of compacts were due in August 2012, and 50% of them were
deemed not acceptable due to too low performance targets being set (Crew, 2013). Chief
Education Officer, Dr. Crew, felt that the goals that were set were too low, with some school
districts showing no growth or as little as one point of growth (Crew, 2013). Oregon school
superintendents felt that they were not able to appropriately address the compacts due to the
short period of time allowed for planning and lack of adequate and accurate performance data (B.
Hammond, 2012) . Due to the potential additional cuts in budget, furlough days, and reduction
in services, superintendents also felt it was realistic to pose only modest gains without the hope
of additional resources (B. Hammond, 2012).
The newest iteration of the achievement compacts dated January 2013 pose the following
questions (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012c) (Appendix A):
 Are students completing high school ready for college or career? Data collected
to answer this question include: graduation rate, earning of college credits in high
school, and post-secondary enrollment.
 Are students making sufficient progress towards college and career readiness?
Data collected to answer this question include: Kindergarten readiness
participation, math and reading proficiency in select grades, attendance, and
credits earned.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 65

 Are students succeeding across all buildings and populations? This is
disaggregated subgroup data for disadvantaged groups. It reports in more
specificity the data for the first two sections looking at the following subgroups
individually: Economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, students
with disabilities, Black, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, and Talented and
Gifted.
 What other measures reflect key priorities in the district? This is an optional
section where districts can choose up to three other indicators to use to measure
growth.
 What is the public investment in the districts? This section details the district’s
revenue excluding capital investments.
Data when not disaggregated is reported for the general population as well as
Disadvantaged Students which is comprised of three subgroups to include students with
disabilities (SWD), English Language Learners (EL), and economically disadvantaged students
(Oregon Education Investment Board, 2012d). The students with disabilities subgroup is
reported as one group and is not disaggregated in terms of mild/moderate and moderate/severe
populations.
In addition to the K-12 compact component, there is also a regional compact being
piloted that brings together the Preschool to 20 continuum and plans for regional articulation of
service delivery for students (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013). The regional
compacts focus on post-secondary enrollment, retention rates of post-secondary institutions,
degree obtainment both in terms of completion and fields of study, employment, and community
connections. The 2013-2014 school year will be the first pilot year. In terms of students with
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 66

disabilities, post-secondary data is not currently being collected for this subgroup into post-
secondary work.
Summary
This literature reviewed discussed special education accountability, goal setting, special
education reform, and history of Oregon’s education history and political context. As Oregon
enters into a new era of accountability, it will be critical to determine if the achievement
compacts ultimately result in an improvement of student performance. Since implementation is
in its early phases, a results oriented examination is premature. The next chapter will examine
discuss the study’s methodology.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 67

Chapter 3: Methods
The purpose of this study is to: 1) determine if Oregon’s achievement compacts capture
indicators that adequately measure accountability for the students with disabilities subgroup; 2)
determine how districts are goal setting for the students with disabilities subgroup; and 3)
determine how special education programs and models are being restructured to meet these
goals. Ultimately, an examination of these factors will help provide predictors if the
achievement compacts have a structure that likely will result in improved academic outcomes for
students with disabilities.
The primary importance of this study will be to inform OEIB on possible revisions to
compacts that may more accurately reflect accountability measures for SWD and provide
information about the process of initial goal setting and program restructuring based on the
introduction of the achievement compacts. The research will also provide district level
administrators with insight on the goal setting and program reform process which ultimately may
be examined for efficacy and provide insight to promising practices in program reform.
Additionally, the research will provide a contribution to the knowledge base of broad literature
examining the issue of special education accountability.
This study investigated three special education directors’ involvement in the development
of goals in alignment with OIEB achievement compacts for students with disabilities. It also
explored how special education students fit into their district’s accountability program and the
process they undertook for program reform. The methodology used to answer these questions
was semi-structured open-ended interview, and the data collected through these qualitative
interviews was used to develop patterns and trends in special education goal setting,
accountability and program reform. Additionally information was gathered from a review of the
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 68

achievement compacts themselves to determine the specificity of information required for
students with disabilities and examine the tool as an accountability measure.
Research Questions:
The specific 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?
2. What processes are district special education leaders engaging in to determine their
individual achievement goals for students with disabilities?
3. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach achievement
compact goals?
Purposeful Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling techniques were used to identify three districts within Oregon
to include in the study. Districts were selected based on multiple criteria regarding
characteristics of the district’s students with disabilities population. The following steps were
used to determine which districts would be included in the study:
1. The first step in determining the districts considered for study was based on size. The
Oregon’s Department of Education Data Book (2007b) , last published in 2007 provides a
side-by-side comparison of special education numbers by district and the percentage of
total population in special education. Although the data was outdated, it allowed for the
initial identification of school districts based on having a students with disabilities
subgroup of over 750 students. From this initial sorting, 24 school districts were
identified.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 69

2. The next step was to pull current data. The most current data regarding the number of
students with disabilities within the districts was found via each district’s Special
Education Report Card. The total percentage of students with disabilities was then
determined based on comparing total number in comparison with total general education
population which was obtained from district demographic data.
Table 3.1
Oregon School Districts with Students with Disabilities 750
District Special
Education #
% of Special Education
Identification within
Total Student Population
Washington 1780 10.5
Adams 1196 14.8
Monroe 918 11.2
Jefferson 2000 13.6
Jackson 822 11.9
Van Buren 1316 10.5
Harrison 850 13.0
Tyler 912 15.8
Polk 2602 14.3
Taylor 1825 16.5
Fillmore 921 15.8
Pierce 1085 12.4
Buchanan 4821 12.4
Lincoln 824 12.9
Johnson 1184 11.8
Grant 1424 11.8
Hayes 6241 13.3
Garfield 1634 15.0
Arthur 795 26.7
Cleveland 4112 11.2
McKinley 777 13.1
Roosevelt 2405 12.2
Taft 1244 10.1
Wilson 767 12.6

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 70

3. To further narrow the field, the following characteristics were considered.
a. Districts that had over 3,500 were eliminated. Due to this large size, these
districts were not representative of the typical district composition in Oregon.
Buchanan, Hayes, and Cleveland School Districts were therefore eliminated.
b. Percentage of identification was also considered as a delimiting factor. When
examining the percentage of students with disabilities across the states, 13% is the
average rate of identification with 10% being the federal target (Scull & Winkler,
2011). In smaller population samples, this percentage can sometimes be elevated
simply based on size. However districts were strategically chosen to have a
substantial enough subgroup to eliminate this concern. Multiple factors can
contribute to the over-identification which does not necessarily reflect poorly on a
districts’ identification process or leadership; however, for the purpose of a
similar comparison, any district with an identification rate over 13.5% was also
eliminated (Scull & Winkler, 2011). Due to the higher percentage of
identification rate, 7 additional districts were eliminated.
c. Finally of the remaining thirteen districts, the special education leadership was
investigated to ensure that there was a single person such as a director who was
responsible for overall leadership and management of the special education
department. This was accomplished by checking district websites for
management organization charts and calling districts to determine leadership
structure. Based on this analysis, three additional districts were eliminated.
By applying all of the previous criteria, a sample size of 12 was identified for potential inclusion
in the study. The total available field of 12 will then be narrowed based on availability,
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 71

accessibility, and willingness to participate in the research process. The three districts that will
be used in the study include Jefferson School District, Monroe School District, and Roosevelt
School District.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
In order to better understand each of the districts identified in the study, the following pieces of
data were collected in regards to students with disabilities:
1. Overall district demographics to include:
a. Composition of student demographics
b. Student performance on OAKS
c. District Leadership Structure
2. Students with disabilities demographic information to include:
a. Breakdown of composition of subgroup characteristics
b. Review of the District’s Special Education Report
c. Student with disability subgroup performance on OAKS
d. Compliance with federal indicators
This information provided the foundation to understand the overall characteristics of each district
to allow for the qualitative data gathered through the interview process to be placed properly in
context.
Qualitative Data
The primary data collection source was in the form of 1:1 interviews with the leaders of
special education programs. The interview protocol which focused specifically on special
education accountability, goal setting, and reform was piloted in March 2013. After initial
piloting, the open-ended semi-structured interview protocol went through several iterations to
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 72

ensure that questions were easily understood and yielded data directly aligned with research
questions. Initial contact with directors was made during August 2013 via e-mail to solicit
participation in the study. In-person interviews were then conducted with each director during
October 2013 with limited follow-up contact made via e-mail to provide minor clarifications to
data.
Data Analysis
After the conclusion of each interview, the first step in the data analysis process was to
transcribe each interview. Following transcription, the interviews were all manually sorted and
coded to assist in the identification of major categories and emergent themes. Each case study
was then analyzed individually and in conjunction with the others to look for trends and
divergences in order to inform answers to research questions. This analysis included a specific
comparison in the responses to best practices in goal setting, special education accountability
with IDEA as well as the Oregon Achievement Compacts, and finally special education reform.
Summary
This chapter provided a detailed overview of the data collection and data analysis
methodology used for this project. Information was provided on sampling techniques,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. By examining the current policies and
practices in three large Oregon districts, the following chapter will examine the achievement
compacts as they relate specifically to the students with disabilities subgroup and maintain a
process oriented focus looking to 1) determine if Oregon’s achievement compacts capture
indicators that adequately measure accountability for the students with disabilities subgroup; 2)
determine how districts are goal setting for students with disabilities subgroup; and 3) determine
how special education programs and models are being restructured to meet these goals.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 73

Chapter 4 provides a detailed examination of the results of data collection and analysis
for each district studied, and Chapter 5 synthesizes the information to draw final conclusions for
the implications of special education accountability and reform in Oregon moving forward.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 74

Chapter 4: Findings
Introduction
This chapter opens with an overview of the quantitative characteristics of the three
districts included in this study to provide the background to understand each district’s unique
profile and provide the context for the qualitative discussion. Following the review of the
districts characteristics, the chapter then proceeds to report the qualitative findings obtained
during interviews with special education directors to help inform the answers to the following
research questions:
1. What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system using to measure
accountability for students’ with disabilities?
2. What processes are district special education leaders engaging in to determine their
individual achievement goals for students with disabilities?
3. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach achievement
compact goals?
Broad District Demographics and Trends
As part of the methodology of selecting districts, criteria required that the special
education population number over 700 students and that the percentage of identification of
special education students be under 13.5% identification rate. In meeting with the study
specifications, the following school districts were selected:

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 75

Table 4.1
District and State of Oregon Special Education Population

District Total Student
Population
Total Students
with Disabilities
% Identification
Special Education
2011-2012
Johnson 10,710 1,371 12.8
Monroe 8,687 895 10.3
Roosevelt 20,487 2,725 13.3
Oregon State 563,714 74,410 13.2
Note: Data found in individual district’s 2012-2013 Report Cards and October 1, 2011
Enrollment Counts at http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard

The three districts selected were very diverse ranging from heterogeneous to homogenous
student populations and represent the socio-economic spectrum at the high, middle, and low
levels. The academic achievement is likewise scaffolded from high, middle, to low performance
on state measures. Monroe School District was the most heterogeneous district examined in this
study. Almost 78% of their students are white, only 22% qualify for free or reduced lunch, and
none of their schools qualify as Title 1. Of their fourteen schools, thirteen qualify as outstanding
with only one at the satisfactory level indicating a district wide advanced level of achievement.
Their special education identification rate of 10.3% is well below the state’s average of 13.2%.
Roosevelt was the largest of the district’s examined in this study and is in the top 5% in size for
Oregon’s school districts serving almost 20,500 students making them twice the size of other
districts in the study. Overall their academics are strong as evidenced by their school’s ratings
with 67% Satisfactory, 27% Excellent, and only 6% Needs Improvement (Oregon Department
of Education, 2013b). The district’s graduation rate is above that of the State at 75.5%. The
ethnic composition of the district is predominately white at 50.9% followed by a large Hispanic
population of 34.7%. Roosevelt’s special education population is 13.3% placing it as the highest
identification rate within the study and right at the state average of 13.2%. Johnson School
District is the most culturally and linguistically diverse district examined in this study. With a
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 76

student population of about 10,700 students, 77% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch
making their student population the most economically disadvantaged in comparison.
The following tables are provided to demonstrate the differences among the districts so
there is a frame of reference when later examining their achievement data and more fully
understanding the lens through which they answered research questions.

Table 4.2
Diversity Indicators- Ethnicity
District White Black Hispanic Asian/PI American
Indian
Multi-
Ethnic
Total #
Students
Johnson 44.3 9.6 24.5 15.5 0.8 5.4 10,710
Monroe 77.8 0.7 10.7 4.4 0.5 5.9 8,687
Roosevelt 51.0 2.1 34.7 7.3 0.9 4.1 20,487
Oregon State 64.7 2.5 21.5 4.6 1.7 5.0 563,714
Note: Based on October 1, 2012 Student Ethnicity Report found at
http://www.ode.state.or.us/sfda/reports/r0067Select.asp

Table 4.3
Additional Diversity Indicators
District % Free and
Reduced Lunch
% English as Second
Language
Johnson 77.8 20.8
Monroe 21.8 2.9
Roosevelt 44.5 12.7
Oregon State 53.0 10.4
Note: Data at http://www.ode.state.or.us/sfda/reports/r0061Select.asp

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 77

Table 4.4
District Achievement OAKS Indicators 2012-2013
District Language Arts Math Writing Science*
Johnson
3-5
th
Grade 64.9 58.3 66.3
6
th
-8
th
Grade 63.0 67.4 63.9
11
th
Grade 77.0 60.5 51.2 52.1
Monroe
3-5
th
Grade 81.9 74.6 85.0
6
th
-8
th
Grade 81.0 74.7 74.8
11
th
Grade 93.4 78.7 79.0 76.3
Roosevelt
3-5
th
Grade 69.1 60.3 68.9
6
th
-8
th
Grade 68.0 56.5 61.6
11
th
Grade 84.9 71.4 56.9 61.3
Oregon State
Average

3-5
th
Grade 71.0 62.1 68.1
6
th
-8
th
Grade 69.1 62.1 67.1
11
th
Grade 85.7 70.1 61 64.2
Note: Values indicate % of students who Met or Exceeded Expectations. *Students participate in Science in Grades
5, 8, and 11. Based on individual District’s Oregon Report Card 2012-2013

Table 4.5
District College and Career Readiness Indicators
Freshman on
Track to
Graduate
Graduation Rate Drop Out Rate Continuing
Education*
Johnson 83.1 69.3 4.0 61.8
Monroe 84.2 88.5 .7 77.7
Roosevelt 79.0 75.5 3.0 59.7
Oregon 68.4 3.4 61.1
Note: *Students who are enrolled in a community college or four-year school within 16 months of graduation.
Based on individual District’s Oregon Report Card 2012-2013

Monroe’s academic achievement in all measured categories was consistently above State
wide average. Both Johnson and Roosevelt were below state averages in most categories with
Johnson only exceeding the average in middle school math and Roosevelt exceeding the state
average in high school math and elementary science. When comparing the three districts of
study with Oregon, all three have exceeded the expected graduation rate and continuing
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 78

education rate for the state. Drop-out rates are within state parameters for Roosevelt and
markedly lower for Monroe. Johnson was the only district that had a drop-out rate of 0.6
percent over state average.
Accountability and Indicators of Success
When embarking on the journey of beginning to examine special education
accountability in relation to the achievement compact and NCLB waiver, and answer was sought
to the broad question of, what indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system
using to measure accountability for students’ with disabilities? In interviewing, it became clear
that this question was too simplistic in its design. The answer to the broad question is that, the
indicators for success were those that were required in the compact by the Oregon Department of
Education which at this time include graduation rates and reading/ math proficiency at the 3
rd

and 6
th
grade level. The more telling question and interesting story is what indicators of success
do the school districts use to measure accountability for students with disabilities? The answer
to this question is explored below and will show that the achievement compacts in their design
are too narrow in scope to capture the complexities of special education accountability. Districts
rely primarily on the System Performance Review and Improvement, OAKS data, and IEP goals
to measure students with disabilities growth.
System performance review and improvement (SPR&I). Overwhelmingly, when
special education accountability was discussed, all three directors immediately discussed the
System Performance Review and Improvement (SPR&I) reporting mandates. This is the state
of Oregon’s system to monitor federal compliance regulation. Oregon has developed a traffic
light dashboard indicator system to show which areas districts are in and out of compliance with
and detail the actions that need to be taken. The different indicators that comprise SPR&I help
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 79

district’s to identify issues with disproportionality and student outcomes. Each director
indicated that it was a critical component to special education accountability and is a crucial
piece for district accountability. Districts rely heavily on this system as an indicator of success
with federal and state compliance mandates.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 80

Table 4.6
Districts 2011-2012 Special Education Federal Compliance Indicators
Federal
Indicator
Topic State Target Monroe Johnson Roosevelt
1 Graduation Rates 67.0% 4 yr
72.0% 5 yr
70.5% 4 yr*
63.2% 5 yr
40.2% 4 yr
54.0% 5 yr
54.1% 4yr
48.2% 5 yr
2 Drop-Out 3.6% or less 1.0%* 5.1% 3.3%*
3 Participation
Assessment
95%+ 99.7%* 98.4%* 98.9%*
4 Suspensions and
Expulsions
None None* None* None*
5 LRE 70.0%+ 80%
10.8% - 40%
2.0% -
separate
setting
76.9%*
10.7%*
.2%*
79.5%*
10.1%*
1.6%*
62.2%
11.5%
1.7%*
6 Preschool LRE Preschool data is maintained by the Educational Service
District providing oversight and responsibility for the early
childhood services rather than the individual school districts.
7 Preschool Improved
Outcomes
8 Parent Involvement 41% 33.3% 32.7% 26.2%
9 Disproportionate
Identification
None None* None* None*
10 Disproportionate
Disability
Categories
None None* None* None*
11 Child Find 98.6% 100%* 100%* 98.3%
12 Transition C-B 100% Not reported as disaggregated. All 130
transitioning students in State are reported to
have met requirement at 100%
13 Transition Goals
IEP
100% Not reported
due to low #
Not reported
due to low #
28.6%
14 Post-secondary + 1
year
Higher
Education
26.0%
Higher
Education or
employed
52.0%
Higher Ed,
voc. Ed, or
employment
68.0%
34.6%*
80.8%*
84.6%*
22.6%
51.6%
80.6%*

20.0%
48.0%
69.3%*
Note: *Met State Target. Based on individual District’s Special Education Report Card 2012-2013

The previous data, taken from special education report cards released April 2013, reflect
the results of the SPR& I data from the 2011-2012 school year. Each area which meets state
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 81

compliance requirements is indicated with an asterisk (*). An analysis of the data shows that,
consistent with the literature (Albrecht et al., 2012; Ford, 2012; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011) the
disproportionality indicators 9 and 10 regarding disproportionality are within compliance
guidelines in all three districts. When looking at graduation and other long-term indicators of
success, each district struggled to meet state standards. Only Monroe school district met the 4-
year graduation expectation and none of the districts met the state’s 5-year graduation
expectation. When analyzing the Individual Transition Plan data monitoring, only one district,
Roosevelt, reported data and they were significantly out of compliance at 28.6% out of an
expected 100% target. The data sheets indicated that the ITP completion rates were not
displayed because “at least 6 students are needed to maintain confidentiality”. However in
district’s these sizes, it would seem unlikely that there would be fewer than 7 students over the
age of 16.
When analyzing the post-secondary outcomes, all three districts were compliant with
State expectations of at least 68% of students’ one year post graduation to be either engaged in
higher education, vocational education, or employment. However, only one district, Monroe, met
the state expectations of enrollment in higher education or competitive employment positions.
Data is taken at the one year post-completion mark and is not reflective of long-term outcomes.
This data appears commensurate with the national trends for outcomes of special education
students. According to the United States Department of Labor, only 17.8% of disabled adults are
employed (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013a). This is compared to Oregon’s overall general
population unemployment rate which in October 2013 was 7.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2013b); however, directors indicated that the disabled unemployment rate is higher with most of
their disabled students struggling to find paid employment. Even while students with
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 82

disabilities are within the school district systems, locating community based employment
opportunities has been challenging for districts. Johnson School District has created
microbusinesses to provide their adult transition program students with employment
opportunities. The business venture has been profitable and allowed students to earn a wage and
gain valuable job skills.
With the exception of Roosevelt, least restrictive environment targets were also hit. This
is consistent with the director’s feedback that the both Monroe and Johnson School Districts
have been working diligently to restructure programs to move towards more inclusive and
collaborative models for students. Johnson’s director for example indicated that ten year ago,
self-contained classrooms were over-utilized, and there was the district culture based belief that
self-contained environments were best for students and that most special education students
required a smaller setting. Johnson School District was well over the state’s expected level for
least-restrictive environment. The district has worked diligently to change this paradigm and
introduce more inclusive practices as well as adding in supports for their general education
teachers. Monroe also has made a shift to not only serve students in general education, but also
to provide student service at their school of residence. Previously they had centralized district
programs. Recently, they have worked to restructure and move programs and supports back to
student’s home school to foster a more inclusive culture and keep students in their resident
schools.
In the area of parent involvement, none of the districts studied met the state expectations
of parent involvement. When discussing changes to overall program structures, all three
directors indicated that they are making concerted efforts to increase the level of parent
participation. Monroe and Roosevelt School Districts have, within the last year, developed
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 83

community parent groups. The special education departments have been making a concerted
effort to work on developing a community collaboration group to pull resources together for
parents, offer trainings, and develop partnerships. Monroe’s director indicated that although
Monroe School District has always had a high degree of parent participation on the general
education side, there has been a lack of parent involvement and opportunities for involvement
within special education. Johnson’s director also indicated that increasing the parent
participation is a priority that Johnson School District is working on tackling in the upcoming
year.
As indicated by all directors, SPR&I data is taken very seriously because of the
implications for non-compliance. For each item found out of compliance, districts have to write
improvement plans and go through a series of time consuming and unpleasant tasks. All three
directors expressed concerns regarding compliance taking priority over instruction. The director
of Roosevelt wished she had the ability to split her staff and have a portion focus on compliance
and the rest focus on instruction feeling that there has been a lack of balance in special education
between compliance and instruction. Because compliance pieces are so critical to ensuring
funding, are closely monitored, and are publically distributed, Johnson School District puts a
great deal of their professional development into compliance trainings and engaging in review
teams monthly where they bring staff together to review files and ensure they are compliant.
Although there were concerns, Monroe’s Director pointed out that the SPR&I has the
positive outcome of inviting districts to examine data on an annual basis and analyze critical
components to their special education programs such as graduation rates, discipline, and least
restrictive environment. Monroe School District has a representative special education
leadership group that helps to review the data. In Roosevelt District, with the largest special
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 84

education population, one administrator is dedicated to monitoring compliance and responsible
for SPR&I data. In the past, the district has been non-compliant and had to develop
improvement plans. From this process, some positive processes have been put in place. For
example, when found out of compliance on suspending students with disabilities over 10 days,
the district implemented an 11
th
day plan where teams develop a plan how students will be
provided with their services after the 10
th
day of suspension. It has also brought the spotlight to
inconsistent disciplinary practices for students with disabilities and students across different
schools within the district. Recently the district has been non-compliant on students not taking
the OAKS. This has come from teachers opting students out of the assessment based sometimes
on parent request but often on teachers feeling the measures may not be necessary and
appropriate for the students.
Overall, in order to be in compliance with the federal indicators, a great deal of district’s
time and resources are developed to ensuring that the district receives compliant SPR&I
indicators. Although there are the benefits, the directors all expressed the desire that special
education could begin balancing a focus on instruction instead of having a heavy compliance
focus. Because the compliance demands are required to be at 100%, the directors also felt that
the standard was unreasonable and did not allow for basic human factors to be considered.
Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skill (OAKS). When discussing what indictors
of success were used to measure academic growth for students with disabilities, all three
directors pointed to the student achievement system of OAKS being the primary measure that
their districts utilized to measure academic progress. Each district had a different experience with
the utilization of OAKS data. For example, one director indicated that under previous
leadership, the data was so opaque that school names were not even provided when presenting
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 85

data in order to save embarrassment among school leaders. The data could therefore not be used
in a meaningful way, and there was not a culture of data based decision making. Since the
introduction of new leadership, there has been transparency and the district has shifted towards a
data driven culture. Monroe’s director indicated that the district had a culture for a long period
of time where OAK assessment results were not carefully examined. Their students were high
achieving and the OAKS data was not a focus because everyone did well. Since scores were
high, there was a lack of focus put on analyzing and dissecting the data to ensure all subgroups
were making progress. Since the introduction of the new superintendent almost three years ago,
that culture has changed and the superintendent has challenged staff to think differently about
assessment and the use of data. This leadership key was a trend in all three directors when
discussing the use of OAKS data and putting a priority on academic achievement. Each director
focused on the superintendent fostering a culture of transparent data sharing and ensuring that
district leaders used data to help improve student performance. All three districts had a culture
of shared accountability. Monroe’s director indicated that the district examines all subgroups.
She appreciates that the culture allows for shared ownership of all students so the accountability
for students with disabilities does not just rest with special education.
Districts throughout Oregon annually send out to each of their students a mandated
District Report card which details student data and achievement. In order to develop comparison
tables of growth from the 2011-2012 to 2012-2013 school year, it was the intent of the researcher
to compare the OAKS data presented in the report cards. However, the formatting of the report
cards was changed and the data are not comparable. This information is shared as part of the
story regarding data, transparency, and the movement away from the use of a standardized
academic measures in Oregon to monitor progress. The 2011-2012 report card included NAEP
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 86

results as well as OAKS data broken down by grade level, content area, and subgroup data
showing those students who exceeded, met, and did not meet standards. The 2012-2013 district
report cards do not include NAEP results, and reported OAKS data in grade spans, grouping 3-
5
th
grade and 6
th
-8
th
grade together and did not break the data into subgroups. Additional data
were added to the 2012-2013 report cards to include discipline, and there is a heavy focus on
outcomes and curriculum/learning environment. Because of the lack of comparison, the
following OAKS data measuring growth from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013 were manually pulled
from the State’s Student Achievement Data in Education Explorer (2013) and growth was
calculated by the researcher. Tables 4.7 and 4.8 are a snapshot of the growth in math and reading
for all three districts over the past two years; additional years are not included as the data was not
comparable due to changes in the measure.
Table 4.7
OAKS Scores Comparison- Math 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
District Subgroup 2011-12
% Meet
or
Exceed
2012-
2013
%
Meet
or
Exceed
%Growth %2012-2013
Achievement Gap
Johnson Non-Disabled 69 67 -2 42
Johnson SWD 24 25 +1
Monroe Non-Disabled 84 80 -4 46
Monroe SWD 41 34 -7
Roosevelt Non-Disabled 68 66 -2 44
Roosevelt SWD 25 22 -3
Note: Data taken from Oregon Department of Education, Education Data Explorer. For full OAKS
comparison please see Appendix C, D, and E.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 87

Table 4.8
OAKS Scores Comparison- Language Arts 2011-2012 and 2012-2013
District Subgroup 11-12
% Meet
or
Exceed
12-13
% Meet
or
Exceed
%Growth %2012-2013
Achievement Gap
Johnson Non-Disabled 73 70 -3 41
Johnson SWD 28 29 +1
Monroe Non-Disabled 88 87 -1 43
Monroe SWD 40 44 +4
Roosevelt Non-Disabled 78 76 -2 45
Roosevelt SWD 30 31 +1
Note: Data taken from Oregon Department of Education, Education Data Explorer. For full OAKS
comparison please see Appendix C, D, and E.

From a quick examination of the tables, it is clear to see that there is a marked
discrepancy between achievement in all three districts between students without disabilities and
those with disabilities. The achievement gap ranges in math from 42-46 percentage points and
from 41-45 percentage points in reading. Far less than half of all special education students are
proficient across all three districts. Growth between the 2 years reflects minimal to negative
growth overall. The largest percentage of improvement was seen in Monroe’s student with
disabilities group at a four percentage point improvement in reading. All other areas in Monroe
declined in performance. In Johnson, there was a one percentage point gain for students with
disabilities in both reading and math, while in Roosevelt, students with disabilities lost three
percentage points in math and gained only one in reading. The data reflects a continuing
marked achievement gap between students without and students with disability.
Using OAKS data is not without unique issues for special education students. Johnson’s
director discussed some of the challenges in using standardized data to measure a population
with such varied and unique needs. Although growth is expected of all students there is such a
wide spectrum of ability, having a single or even an additional 1% measure is not adequate to
capture the growth made by many students. The director of Monroe School District indicated
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 88

that typically the mild/moderate and moderate/severe population’s data is looked at as one group.
Because the moderate/severe population is so small, the data is typically folded into the entire
aggregate group. Unless there is a specific reason, the district does not usually drill down any
deeper than the overall subgroup data.
OAKS data is the primary summative indicator to determine if the student’s with
disabilities group is making growth. The trend discussed by all three directors is that within the
last few years, there has been an increased focus on sub-set data to include students with
disabilities. This has been a positive change for the district cultures, and each director indicated
that there was shared ownership district wide for all students succeeding, and special education
students were not viewed in a negative light or seen as a root cause of poor achievement data.
In all three of the districts studied, the special education subgroup did not cause their overall
districts to miss their annual performance targets. In Roosevelt district, there were a few schools
with large concentrations of special education students that caused a school site to miss their
AYP; but otherwise, special education students were not viewed as negatively impacting district
scores.
Individual Education Plan Goals. In addition to large scale data, all three directors
indicated that for students with disabilities, a key component to accountability is progress
towards the student’s individual education plan (IEP) goals. By using goals as a measure of
progress, each student’s unique needs can be carefully monitored to ensure they are making
adequate yearly progress. All three districts are working towards transitioning to standards
based goals and devoting training to ensure that goals are in a strength based model, measurable,
and aligned to the common core standards. Because each special education student is so unique,
goals are invaluable in ensuring that students are making meaningful progress.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 89

Achievement Compacts. Because the achievement compacts are comprised of
achievement data from OAKS and graduation measures that were already captured in SPR&I
data, the directors did not focus their attention on the achievement compacts when questioned
about accountability measures for special education students. As will be discussed when
examining the goal setting research question, the achievement compacts were secondary to
district established goals and objectives and ultimately just provided a new vehicle for reporting
data. The compacts also only look at a small data set, and the directors were interested in
examining the larger data field for all grade levels and also examining their district developed
formative and summative measures.
Monroe’s director indicated that when the compacts first were introduced that there was
no disaggregation of data for special needs student and all disadvantaged learners were grouped
together. Directors expressed their concerns with Oregon Department of Education regarding
the danger of grouping unlike subgroups. Monroe’s director said that one of the best components
of NCLB was the disaggregation of data so that attention was brought to performance of under-
performing populations. This story was consistent with a review of the compacts which showed
first iterations of the achievement compacts only having data on Disadvantaged learners and later
iterations also breaking down the category into subsets to include special education students,
English language learners, and financially disadvantaged students. The directors all indicated
that there have been logistical issues with the compacts that have caused delays. For example,
the compacts were initially due prior to the district’s receiving the previous year’s data so the
State had to push the due dates out.
Summary of accountability and indicators of success. A consistent theme throughout
accountability with the special education directors is that students with disabilities not only need
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 90

to be held to a high standard and expected to make growth, but the entire district needs to be
responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities make substantial progress and work to
close the achievement gap. Each of the three districts have supportive superintendents and
cultures that have already embraced special education students as belonging to all or are in
journey towards an inclusive culture. Accountability within special education for those districts
is not limited to academic achievement on state assessments, but is also strongly aligned to state
compliance indicators as measured through SPR&I system, district assessments, and IEP goals.
Although the achievement compacts are seen as an accountability measure, overall the compacts
are seen as another way of measuring growth and success using data that had been previously
utilized. All three directors were very mission driven, and although involved in the compacts,
the achievement compacts were not the driving force behind their work.
Goal Setting
The following section examines what processes district special education leaders engaged
in to determine their individual achievement goals for students with disabilities. Since each
district has its own unique leadership configuration, the district’s processes for determining goal
setting for students with disabilities will be examined separately. Additionally each District’s
achievement compact goals will be displayed and discussed. At the conclusion, parallels will be
drawn between the three districts’ goal setting and decision making processes.
In order to provide additional context for readers, please note that the achievement
compact tool has changed each year. For example, in the area of Progression to answer OIEB’s
question of, “are students making sufficient progress toward college and career readiness,” has
had changes to the data being collected. The chart below indicates the different measures that
are being collected.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 91

Table 4.8
Comparison of Achievement Compact Measures of Progression 2012-2013 and 2013-2014
2012-2013 2013-2014
Ready for School- Kindergarten Readiness
Assessment under development
Kinder Assessment Participation
3
rd
Grade Reading 3
rd
Grade Reading
3
rd
Grade Math Proficiency 5
th
Grade Math Proficiency
3
rd
Grade Math Proficiency 6
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent
6
th
Grade On-Track 8
th
Grade Math Proficiency
9
th
Grade On- Track 9
th
Grade Credits Earned
9
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent

Because the data collected has continually changed, it is challenging to provide a consistent
comparison of performance. Additionally, the OEIB’s published district compacts for the 2012-
2013 school year do not list the district-set goals but rather just previous performance levels.
Since the goals are not provided, it cannot be evaluated if the districts met their goals outside of
anecdotal evidence. The 2013-2014 published compacts do list the districts’ goals for the school
year; however, the equity indicators are not reported.
Johnson School District goal setting. When the achievement compacts were introduced,
the superintendent of Johnson School District formed a group of stakeholders to work toward
setting goals. The task force was comprised of certificated staff, classified staff, administration,
and the school board. The special education director was involved in this group and was able to
provide guidance on students with disabilities. The group first examined a broad over-view of
the compacts and then went to work with goal setting. During the first round of goal setting and
establishing compact targets, the team struggled with whether they should make the goals
obtainable and reachable or rigorous to close the achievement gap. The team ultimately
examined past trends in student growth and made reasonable calculations of growth based on
previous trends. Thus, the first attempt at goal setting was very modest, went along with the
trend line, and did not meaningfully address the achievement gap. Johnson’s director indicated
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 92

that with the trajectory line that was established, special education students would never really
close the achievement gap.
The decision to make safe choices came out of a real fear. The district did not know what
would happen if they did not meet their goals as the State had not indicated what the
consequences would be if districts did not reach their self-set goals. Johnson School District
feared that if they set ambitious goals and then did not reach those goals, there might be serious
sanctions that would make it more challenging to implement educational programs. The district
therefore made the decision to set goals that they had a better chance of reaching based on the
state’s lack of clarity of the sanctions for non-compliance. The task force decided to set goals
that were realistic and not take chances. As a result, the Chief Education Officer at the time,
Rudy Crew, sent back their compact as not being rigorous enough. When the compact was sent
back, the group reconvened and turned their focus on how they would close the achievement
gap. The group determined that for those groups that were struggling instead of the 5% growth,
they would need to increase on an average of 11% per year in order to close the achievement gap
in a three to five year period. Initially the 2013-2014 compacts were due in July, but because
the data was not available until fall, the date was pushed back to allow for the teams to re-
examine goals. Johnson’s director indicated that they had to revise some of their elementary
goals that had been over-projected and work with their counselors in developing the attendance
goal for the compact.
In addition to implementing the district wide goals and those targets set in the
achievement compacts, Johnson’s special education director also sets department goals based on
instructional, compliance, and student needs. Each individual student also has annual goals that
are reasonably calculated based on the student’s unique needs to ensure that they are making
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 93

systematic growth. There is not a district standard per se for the amount of growth necessary in
annual goals since each student is so unique; however there is always the concern that the
standard one year’s growth will not ever result in closing the achievement gap for students
already behind. And yet, these are the very students who struggle to make a year’s growth and
are sometimes precluded from doing so due to their disability. It is the conundrum in special
education: goal setting and accountability.
When reviewing the actual goals that Johnson School District set for the 2013-2014
school year (Table 4.9), the goals were modest in nature. Because there were not published
goals for the 2012-2013 school year, it is not clear if Johnson School District met their
performance goals from the previous year. However, when comparing the 2013-2014 new
performance goals set by the district in comparison with the actual 2012-2013 performance data,
the new projected goals show limited expectations of growth.
Table 4.9
Johnson Achievement Compact- Current Data and Compact Goal Projection Targets
Area of Measurement 2012-2013
%
Performance
of All
Students
2012-2013 %
Performance
of
Disadvantaged
Students
2013-2014
% Goals
set for all
Students
2013-2014 %
Goals set for
Disadvantaged
Students
Kinder Assessment Participation - - 98.0 98.0
3
rd
Grade Reading Proficiency 61.0 55.1 67.0 62.0
5
th
Grade Math Proficiency 61.7 58.3 67.0 64.0
6
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent 87.7 86.6 90.0 89.0
8
th
Grade Math Proficiency 68.0 63.2 72.0 68.0
9
th
Grade Credits Earned 81.7 79.1 84.0 82.0
9
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent 81.3 80.1 84.0 83.0
Note: 2012-2013 District Achievement Compacts available at: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/acall.pdf

When setting goals for the 2013-2014 school year, the largest projected increase was seen in the
area of 3
rd
grade reading where there is a projected 6 percentage point gain for all students and 7
percentage point gain for disadvantaged students. This is also the only area where Johnson’s
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 94

disadvantaged population had a higher growth target, by one percentage point, when compared
to the projected growth for the total population. In fact, in the area of 5
th
grade math proficiency,
even though there is an equity gap in performance, the district set a lower growth goal for
disadvantaged students than their general population goal. These modest growth targets and
targets that do not expect greater gains of from the disadvantaged student set will not work
towards closing the achievement gap.
Monroe School District goal setting. In order to address the achievement compacts, a
committee was developed through the superintendent’s office and was appointed by the school
board. The committee included representatives from both classified and certificated
associations, building administrators, central office administrators, and included strong special
education representation including the director. Monroe’s director indicated that initially, when
the compacts were first proposed, they did not disaggregate special education students from
disadvantaged students. This seemed to defeat the purpose and gains made by NCLB legislation
in examining underperforming subgroup performance. Based on the testimony of special
educators, the data sets were eventually extrapolated and reported individually from the larger
disadvantaged field. This allowed the compacts to have a more meaningful data measure for
special education, English language learners, and economically disadvantaged students. The
entire achievement compact committee was then able to focus on subgroup needs to include
special education student’s performance.
At first, Monroe’s director reported, the task felt overwhelming, but the process had an
interesting evolution. Although the compacts required only certain years testing data, the district
continued to focus on students in all grade levels. Then based on this more comprehensive goal
setting, the specific grade levels reported on in the compacts (3
rd
, 6
th
, and 11
th
) were extrapolated.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 95

These specific grade levels were used in reviewing data points and benchmarks to examine for
trends. The challenge for the group was setting goals that were aligned with the district’s vision
and philosophy.
According to the director, the superintendent of Monroe School District is a very
inspiring leader and dynamic speaker. He holds the belief that all goals should be at a 100%
proficiency level and setting a goal for anything less is not acceptable for students. His
leadership style was framed with a 100% mindset needing to be set in order to have miracles
occur. The district therefore had a philosophy that if the achievement goals do not aspire to
unprecedented results, then the district will never achieve unprecedented gains. Therefore,
district and individual building goals are all set at 100%. The achievement compact committee
went through a lot of angst in trying to reconcile the need for realistic goals for the State and
what that would say about the district’s belief in their student’s if a goal less that 100% was
established. Having a 100% goal with possible sanctions for not meeting the goal at the State
level with unknown consequences seemed too big a risk. Therefore the group had to reframe
their thinking in setting goals for students. The mindset shifted to a 100% goal where 100% of
students would make individual progress, and although those that were below proficient may not
reach proficiency, all students would make progress towards mastery. From that point, the
development then of those goals in the compacts was not extremely scientific; the committee
looked at what reasonable growth was based on past trends and then would shoot for a similar
level of growth plus modest additional growth per group.
This methodology is very similar to IEP goal setting that is done annually for Monroe’s
special education students where reasonably calculated goals are developed for each student
based on their current level of performance. As a district, Monroe’s director is working to ensure
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 96

that goals are being written based on data and that present levels of performance, baselines, and
annual goals are all aligned and being measured by the same data. The push is to ensure that
every IEP team has strong data to show growth. Monroe’s director indicated that because
some students are not able to adequately access standard accountability measures used by the
state that it is sometimes challenging to measure their progress. All students, even the most
impaired, should be making significant growth annually. For more impaired students, there are
multiple indicators of success to ensure progress is being made. These include IEP goals, Factors
systems for independent routines, and curriculum based measures. As a special education
department, Monroe’s goal is to ensure that all special education students have ambitious goals
that are moving them forward. The goals however may be not all be academic. For example, a
department goal is for special education students to have 100% participation in a co-curricular
activity.
As evidenced by Table 4.10, Monroe’s goal setting was systematic and all targets were
projected for growth. The disadvantaged student growth exceeded that of the general population
in all categories. The most ambitious area of growth was in 5
th
grade math proficiency where
disadvantaged students are projected to increase proficiency rate by 15.4% and all students by
10.1%. This district was the only one that set a 100% goal for incoming kindergarten
assessment participation.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 97

Table 4.10
Monroe Achievement Compact- Progression Monitoring
Measurement Area 2012-2013
% All
Students
2012-2013 %
Disadvantaged
Students
2013-2014 %
Goals All
Students
2013-2014 %
Goals
Disadvantaged
Students
Kinder Assessment Participation - - 100.0 100.0
3
rd
Grade Reading Proficiency 78.7 62.5 90.0 77.0
5
th
Grade Math Proficiency 74.9 52.6 85.0 68.0
6
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent 88.0 79.9 90.0 85.0
8
th
Grade Math Proficiency 74.3 53.2 80.0 62.0
9
th
Grade Credits Earned 84.2 55.5 90.0 65.0
9
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent 84.3 74.9 86.0 78.0
Note: 2012-2013 District Achievement Compacts available at: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/acall.pdf

Roosevelt School District goal setting. Roosevelt’s director indicated that Roosevelt has
always had visions and goals that include all students. The district’s philosophy is that it is
everyone’s responsibility to educate all students. As such, special educators along with the
general education counterparts are trained in the best instructional techniques for all students.
For example, when there are Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) trainings,
general education, special education and English language learner teachers are all involved in
order to allow them to deliver high quality instruction. Because of the size of the district,
coordinating goals and vision is more complex than in smaller districts.
Roosevelt’s director participates on the Strategic Planning Committee. This is a committee
organized through the superintendent’s office that is comprised of a wide range of stakeholders
to include every level of the organization from parents, to teachers, administrators, and board
members. The Strategic Planning Committee has a strong special education presence and
representation. The Committee’s primary goals were to work on the strategic plan and
continuous improvement plan. The goal setting process is a multi-step process where subgroups
typically work to generate ideas and then come together to develop broader themes which are
shared with departments for input and brainstorming prior to reconvening for drafting of
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 98

formalized goals. Once goals and initiatives are firmly set, the special education department
works from this overall district strategic plan to scaffold these goals and make them immediately
relevant to special educators by showing the link between the direct activities each special
educator provides and how it is tied to the district’s goals and student achievement. The plan
areas focus on Instruction, Engagement, Safety, Facilities, and Equity and provide a roadmap for
specific district goals and benchmarks.
Much like the Strategic Planning Committee, the achievement compact has a separate
committee that is formed by the superintendent and board. However, the director is not involved
on the particular committee and special education is represented by the Assistant Superintendent
of Instruction. Because of the lack of participation in the group, the director was unable to
comment on the goal setting process in direct relation to the achievement compacts; however,
she hypothesizes a similar goal setting style is used. Since her department focuses are on the
goals stemming from strategic initiatives, she is not familiar with the specifics contained in the
achievement compact. The special education department constantly strives to move each student
regardless of ability forward towards personal growth.
When reviewing the achievement goals that Roosevelt School District set for the 2013-
2014 school year (Table 4.11), there is a wide range of growth expected ranging from a 22.1%
gain to a negative 8.7% loss. Roosevelt set goals that were lower than the previous years in
multiple areas to include all students’ 3
rd
grade reading target and disadvantaged 8th grade math
target. With the exception of this expected loss in 8
th
grade math, disadvantaged had higher
projected gains in all other areas indicating an attempt to close the achievement gap. Their
largest area of projected growth was for disadvantaged in 5
th
grade math where the district
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 99

increased by 17.1%. Their goal setting did not appear to be uniform, and they set their most
ambitious goals for 9
th
grade attendance with a 22.1% gain for students with disabilities.
Table 4.11:
Roosevelt Achievement Compact- Progression Monitoring
Measurement Area 2012-2013
% All
Students
2012-2013 %
Disadvantaged
Students
2013-2014 %
Goals All
Students
2013-2014 %
Goals
Disadvantaged
Students
Kinder Assessment Participation - - 75.0 60.0
3
rd
Grade Reading Proficiency 78.1 70.6 77.0 72.0
5
th
Grade Math Proficiency 60.0 42.9 63.0 60.0
6
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent 86.0 82.8 90.0 88.0
8
th
Grade Math Proficiency 75.0 64.7 65.0 56.0
9
th
Grade Credits Earned 75.0 60.0
9
th
Grade Not Chronically Absent 72.7 61.9 86.0 84.0
Note: 2012-2013 District Achievement Compacts available at: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/acall.pdf

Summary of goal setting. A common theme for two of the districts, Monroe and
Johnson, whose directors participated in the achievement compact committee, was the fear of the
unknown. Both districts felt that there was a lack of transparency on what the State’s
consequences were for not making targeted goals and what was the expected level of goal
setting. Until the initial compacts were returned, they felt there was little guidance on the rigor of
the goals that were being required. Additionally, there was a true fear of the repercussions if the
district failed to meet their goals. Each district’s initial impulse was to shoot for strong and
ambitious goals, but this was hindered in both instances by the fear of unknown sanctions.
In Roosevelt, the largest of the districts, Special Education was not directly involved in
the actual goal setting for the achievement compacts. The department was absolutely mission
driven by the district’s strategic plan, but the achievement compacts did not factor into
department goal setting or practice. In fact, the director could succinctly and explicitly detail the
district’s strategic plans, goals, and how the department’s goals aligned, but she was unaware of
even broad details as it related to the achievement compacts.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 100

In all three districts, there was a culture of goal setting process prior to the
compacts being introduced. All three districts also involved multiple stakeholder groups in
district goal setting and planning. In the smaller districts, the special education directors were
directly involved in the goal setting for the achievement compact whereas Roosevelt had
multiple committees to look at goals setting for the district. It was clear that although there are
set compact and district goals, when examining students with disabilities, especially those on the
moderate to severe spectrum that alternative measures are required to determine if students are
making meaningful progress rather than relying on standardized measures or compact goals. The
IEP goal planning process for individual student expectations was critical in both accountability
and ensuring that students are improving their achievement. All three districts discussed the
importance of training teams on goal setting practices to make sure that they are standards based,
measurable, and building upon a strength rather than a deficit model.
Based on lack of public information regarding the specific goals set by each district for
the 2012-2013 school year, an analysis of the measure of success was unable to be determined.
The measurement for students’ academic progress changed significantly from 2012-2013 to
2013-2014 compacts further complicating meaningful comparison. Districts goals for the 2013-
2014 school year appear to be across the board minimal to moderate in nature with some districts
actually targeting a decline in performance. With the exception of one district, there was not a
significant difference between their general student population growth and disadvantaged student
population indicating that the achievement gap will likely not be closed.
Program Restructuring
A guiding research question focused on how district special education leaders are
restructuring programs to reach achievement compact goals. The broader question of program
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 101

change and decisions driving restructuring of programs was posed to the directors. Ultimately,
none of the directors were influenced specifically to change programs based on the district set
achievement compact goals. Overwhelmingly, the primary impetus for program change was
based on student need and the desire for increased student outcomes. All three directors
indicated that it is student need that determines the need for program changes and restructuring.
The following sections will explore recent program changes in each district, the factors leading
up to the change, the process of making the changes, and how the effectiveness of those changes
is evaluated.
Johnson School District program restructuring. Johnson’s director indicated that
program changes are made almost entirely to meet their special education populations changing
needs. The district is constantly asking the question: are we adequately meeting students’ needs?
The special education population is not static and the needs of students entering into programs
also change over time. The students being served now are very different from their special
education population ten years ago. The students have more complex issues, a higher level of
need, and require a different set of supports. This trend in intensity is seen especially in the
moderate/severe population, autistic population, and students with emotional disturbances.
Because the district has no additional space to add programs, they have to examine current
programs to see how they could be adapted to meet student’s changing needs. Although student
need is at the heart of program changes, other factors such as cost, resources, and space available
all play into decision making processes.
The district has worked to structure their special education programs to ensure that
students are being educated in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Previously the district
was sending about 350 students out of district to be educated because the district did not have
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 102

programs to support the needs of these students. The lack of internal support structures came at a
premium in terms of monetary costs as well as not being able to provide students with access
within their community and providing LRE. As a result, the district has worked to develop
programs to bring students back into the district. Based on the newly created programs
throughout the district, the current number of out-of-district placements has dropped to about
170. One of the most recent program reforms, the district has partnered with a private school
which is located on their one comprehensive high school campus to provide an alternative setting
for students who are not able to effectively access their education on a traditional comprehensive
setting. This program was added to help serve the unique needs of their current special
education population. Because the program is new, the district will evaluate it to see if it is
meeting student needs by analyzing attendance, credits earned, and graduation rates in order to
determine its effectiveness. Since this particular program is alternative, it will also have the
external accountability measures of having to go through annual state reviews, compliance
reviews, site visits, and OAKS data review.
Johnson School District has worked to move toward a more collaborative and inclusive
culture to help students grow both academically and socially. The district has been focusing
their attention to move mild/moderate students into general education to allow them instruction
by the content level experts and to allow the special educators to provide supports and expertise
in differentiation. This change was based on the need to increase outcomes and achievement
levels for students who were being served in self-contained special day class settings. Ten years
ago, self-contained programs were over-utilized because many had the belief that students would
perform better in smaller settings. Johnson School District believes that although some students
do require a smaller setting, most students benefit from the rigorous first instruction being
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 103

provided within the general education setting with additional supports being added when
required. The district had to work on moving toward inclusive practices and focus on developing
more supports for general education teachers. To start this shift in practice the district focused
on those students within their self-contained special day classes that had the behavioral skills to
maintain in the general education setting. They then added in the academic and social skills
support into the classrooms that the students required.
In order to start the programmatic shift, the district started at the middle school level
where there was a large bubble of students and focused its resources on the general education
teachers to help them to build their skills in curriculum differentiation. Then as this middle
school group aged-up to the high school level, the district focused on training the high school
level to address the unique needs to the mild/moderate student who had been successfully placed
in general education in middle school. On the whole, the general education teachers have been
very enthusiastic about the process and at times are even more flexible than the special educators
who are sometimes resistant to the more inclusive model because it significantly changes their
day-to-day teaching practices and long engrained beliefs.
Another recent programmatic change has been within the district’s adult transition
program. The district has not had strong outcomes for their adult transition population once they
age out of district programs, especially in the area of paid employment. Johnson School District
has developed an eclectic program to meet the needs of the unique student population. The
program has evolved to meet the needs of the types of students who are enrolling and had to craft
unique FAPE offers for individual students. Supported by three classrooms, 3 teachers, and 2
vocational specialists, the district has developed micro-businesses for students to work at in order
to obtain job skills and subsidizes the businesses by paying student wages. By providing work
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 104

opportunities to students and job skills, the district hopes the program will improve post-
transition program outcomes.
When the district is considering making a programmatic change, a critical element in the
process is eliciting staff buy-in. Typically, a task force is convened which examines other
districts that are serving students successfully and then looks at how changes could be efficiently
and effectively maximized within Johnson School District. By having high visibility, regularly
attending department meetings, bringing in staff at early planning stages, and organizing task
forces, the director of Johnson has not typically had any problems with eliciting staff support.
Recently, she made a top-down student-driven decision to move towards standards based IEP’s.
This was the first time in her tenure the director had challenges with the union and workload
issues. She realized the error was in skipping the standard practices for making changes within
the department which includes bringing together a focus group to look at the issue and receiving
feedback from stakeholders prior to moving forward. Because staff is very entrenched in the
previous modalities of goal writing, not only was buy-in critical, but staff training was also
required. As a result, the district set up additional guidance and training which it built into pre-
service trainings and monthly trainings. In terms of eliciting parent consent and buy-in to
changes, this has not been an area of resistance largely because the parent population is not
actively engaged.
Johnson’s director indicated that there have not been any specific program reforms in
response to the introduction to the achievement compacts. State initiates such as Grant funding
for RTI have had a considerable positive impact on general education programs; however there
has been no specific tie to special education program reform and the OEIB’s achievement
compacts.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 105

Monroe School District program restructuring. Monroe’s director indicated that
program reform typically is focused on two areas: student need and improving outcomes.
Responding to the changing demographics and unique needs of the students that Monroe is
serving is the impetus for programmatic change. For example, recently there has been a program
restructure based on the changing set of student needs for those who were aging up into and out
of the middle schools. The impetus for the change was based on meeting student need combined
with aligning programs to the district’s philosophical beliefs of inclusive cultures and supporting
students at their school of residence. This district philosophy in collaboration drives much of the
programmatic changes. Monroe school district believes that if initial solid core instruction was
provided that special education remediation would not be required. There is a shared philosophy
that if the school district did general education instruction effectively, all students would get their
needs met. This is very positive for special education in the push to train teachers in
differentiation and supporting effective instruction for all students. The district therefore
supports collaboration at the administrative and school site level and promotes an inclusive
culture. However, this drive for collaboration at times comes with the price of wanting funding
to be put into general education training rather than special education.
In a recent program reform, the district had previously housed all of their special day
class middle school students at one of the district’s three middle schools. One middle school
therefore had three different classrooms supporting the needs of students from around the
district. The district decided to move the students back to their home schools and design
programs at each building location that were tailored for the unique students at that school. The
models at all three sites were configured differently based on the students’ needs. One of the
schools developed a more traditional self-contained model to address significant structure needs
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 106

of students. Another school developed a collaborative co-taught model to address those students
who had previously been in self-contained. And the third school moved to a consultation model
with intensive check-ins coupled with a language arts supported class. The programs now more
effectively meet the needs of the students and support the district’s value of inclusive and
collaborative cultures.
Another programmatic change the district recently undertook was in developing
programs for students with moderate to severe disabilities in the districts’ functional program.
The program required an internal re-design because it lacked common curriculum and common
expectations. Students were not having a consistent experience, and the district wanted to focus
on improved post-secondary outcomes. The district adopted a functional curriculum and set
guidelines to improve the quality of instruction.
Unlike Johnson school district that struggled for parent engagement, Monroe’s parents
are a more active and vocal community. When making programmatic shifts, they maintain open
lines of communication with the parent community by sending home letters and working to share
information through the community collaboration group. In the most recent middle school shift
for example, individual letters were sent to parents and a parent night was scheduled to address
concerns regarding the program restructure. In addition to parent buy-in, staff buy-in is also
required to have an effective programmatic shift. By actively involving staff in the planning
process, staff and administration were both supportive of the programmatic changes. Monroe’s
director values an open sharing of information and regularly communicates to staff via annual
staff kick-off meetings, weekly newsletters, and monthly special education leadership meetings.
Monroe’s director feels that there have not been any specific programmatic reforms yet in
response to the OIEB’s achievement compacts; however, she does feel that there is an increased
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 107

examination of accountability. Especially with the evaluation reforms with Senate Bill 290,
there are very delineated and quantitative measures looking at teaching effectiveness. Previously
the district used a qualitative system that lacked specificity and now evaluation rubrics target
specific identifiers. This strengthens the accountability as applied through practice. Special
education is continuing to work on this type of job embedded accountability in strengthening
data being used in driving goal development and ensuring that IEP’s have clear through lines.
Although there is not a direct tie between the OEIB’s achievement compacts and district reform
efforts in special education, Monroe School District is however very responsive to State
initiatives and requirements. The district has fully implemented common core and is currently
looking at deconstructing the standards and aligning them to Monroe’s already high cognitive
demand teaching.
Roosevelt School District program restructuring. As with the other directors,
Roosevelt’s director indicated that program reform stems primarily from student needs and the
need to improve outcomes. The focus is always on student learning and improving the quality
of programs for better outcomes to include increased achievement and increased life skills. Test
scores or an arbitrary numerical target is rarely the impetus for change because as a district they
want to improve quality rather than placing themselves in the position of teaching to a test.
Roosevelt’s director has not seen any change in program design or reform in direct
response to the OEIB’s achievement compacts. However, accountability has been steadily
increasing over the years with both administration and teachers. The district has been working to
ensure that there is district wide implementation of initiatives and best teaching practices. Each
campus is in a different space with implementation of state and district wide initiatives largely
because of the turn-over in principal leadership. During the current school year, almost 50% of
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 108

the building principals are new. Because of the shifts in leadership, there has been an uneven
implementation of initiatives such as common core, positive behavior support, and Effective
Behavioral and Instructional Services (EBIS). The district is almost fully implemented with
common core and most schools have some iteration of positive support behavior intervention.
However since funding was cut, there is not continued growth and program development in
positive behavior support. The district also used to have an RTI type of intervention called EBIS
that was supported through Oregon Department of Education (ODE). Roosevelt’s director
reported that the amount of money supplied by ODE to support the program, around $6,000.00,
did not cover the amount of administrative time required to data collect and prepare state reports
so the program was stopped. The lack of continuity in site-based leadership and program
implementation has caused the district to have uneven levels of supports throughout the district.
When restructuring special education programs, Roosevelt’s director typically about
disseminates information through monthly special education departmental meetings.
Additionally, task force groups are also formed when looking at significant reforms. One area of
program reform that the district is focusing on is moving toward a more collaborative service
delivery model for their mild/moderate students. There has been a long-time focus on
compliance with special education without the same level of intense focus and scrutiny on
instruction. The need for students to have better outcomes and close the achievement gap has
caused Roosevelt to move towards a more inclusive model. They are working to get students
into the core and ensure they set up success and the high school graduation tract. Previously with
the best of intentions of remediation, students were removed from the core curriculum and
received replacement curriculum. After being in replacement curriculum for a number of years
without exposure to the core, students struggled once they were back into the core curriculum.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 109

There was also a disconnect in teacher training in the past. General education teachers were not
trained in differentiation and special education teachers were not included in core curriculum
trainings. As part of moving to a more inclusive model, there is a mutual effort between special
education and general education to ensure that there is more cross-training. Traditional resource
specialist program (RSP) models are being changed into push-in support, collaborative support,
and co-teaching models. Rather than removing special education students, special educators are
pushing into the core general education classes and providing support.
In order to ensure that these program changes are effective, standardized assessment
scores, observations of instructional practices during rounds, student progress on IEP goals, the
movement of students into core curriculum, and the percentage of support students are receiving
will all be used to measure success. Additionally, soft data points are used such as the school
and classroom environment and parent feedback. Looking forward, Roosevelt sees a need to
work on program reform for their moderate/severe population who are currently struggling to
incorporate functional life skills into the common core. Currently their curriculum is a “mish-
mash” of different programs targeting specific deficits, and they lack a unified functional
curriculum. Roosevelt’s work developing standards-based IEP’s will allow for backwards
mapping and alignment with common core standards.
Summary of program restructuring. All three directors were extremely unified in their
responses for the driving factors behind program restructuring, the types of models to which they
are transitioning, the process for change, and OIEB’s achievement compacts’ influence on
program reform. The changing needs of their student population and the drive to increase
performance outcomes are the primary influence in making program reforms. All three districts
are working toward the integration of their mild/moderate population into general education in a
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 110

more collaborative method of instruction delivery with the hope of approved achievement
outcomes. Concerned about their overall, post-secondary outcomes, the districts are working on
program reforms for their moderate/severe populations to adopt cohesive curriculums aligned
with common core, strengthen functional instruction, and develop adult programs for improved
employment outcomes. The directors all work with focus groups and elicit stakeholder buy-in
prior to moving towards significant changes. Although not systematic program reform, all three
directors are actively working to increase parent involvement/participation and also refine their
IEP goal writing process to standards based goals with consistent measurement of mastery. The
OEIB’s achievement compact has had very limited influence in the directors’ drive to make
programmatic changes. Rather, it is based upon student’s unique needs, and improving student
achievement and outcomes that is leading the way in program reform.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) to determine if Oregon’s achievement
compacts capture indicators that adequately measure accountability for the students with
disabilities subgroup; 2) to determine how districts are goal setting for students with disabilities
subgroup; and finally, 3) to determine how special education programs and models are being
restructured to meet these goals. Although all three districts studied have differing profiles,
their responses to the research questions were remarkably similar.
When measuring special education student’s measurement of success, the compacts were
one of the last considerations in the accountability puzzle. The primary indicators of success
districts are using are the SPRNI compliance indicators, OAKS data to a limited degree
dependent on disability level, and individual IEP goals. These findings are consistent with the
literature reviewed indicting that federal compliance indicators and IEP’s are the primary
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 111

accountability measures in special education. These measures coupled with the district goals,
district level assessments, and observations of effective instructional practices rounded out the
measures that districts use as accountability measures. The achievement compact, although a
State required piece of accountability, is not a tool that directors have embraced as an indication
of an accountability or growth measure at this time.
All three directors came from districts that have a culture of shared decision making and
goal setting. The directors from the smaller districts, Monroe and Jefferson, were both on the
achievement compact committee and responsible for goal setting. Both felt that fear of not
knowing the sanctions for missing benchmark targets played a significant role in the goal setting
process. Committees were torn between setting ambitious goals that would close the
achievement gap and setting goals that were reasonably calculated as achievable. Ultimately,
both districts went with reasonably calculated goals with minor adjustments to slowly work at
closing the achievement gap. Roosevelt’s director played an active role in determining goals for
students with disabilities for the district’s strategic plan and initiatives but was not involved or
aware of the goals within the achievement compact. The driving force behind district initiatives
and goals remained student achievement and improving quality of programs; however, the
achievement compact did not serve as the roadmap to these ends.
Although the achievement compacts are a new measure, their existence had very little
influence on district program reform efforts. Driven instead by student need and the global goal
for increased outcomes, the directors have not experienced change in practice based on the new
State imposed accountability measure. All three districts work towards meeting their students’
needs and improving outcomes regardless of the specific measurement and programmatic
changes stem from this mission.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 112

Building from these data, Chapter 5 will provide a broad summary of the research study,
discuss further implications of these findings, discuss study limitations, draw conclusions, and
provide suggestions for further research areas.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 113

Chapter 5: Discussion
This final chapter opens with a brief global overview of the study, transitions to a
summary of the findings, discusses limitations, provides recommendations for future research,
and finally, comes to a final conclusion.
Overview of Study
After having received a waiver from NCLB criteria, Oregon introduced a new
accountability structure centered on the development of achievement compacts between the State
and local districts (Oregon Education Association, 2012b). This research explored the initial
stages of development and implementation of Oregon Education Investment Board’s (OEIB)
achievement compact as a measure of accountability as it applies to the students with disabilities
subgroup. Specifically, Oregon’s achievement compacts were examined to determine the
measures of accountability included as indicators of success for students with disabilities, how
districts determined their individual achievement goals, and how special education programming
was restructured to meet those goals.
The primary importance of this study is to provide information to the OEIB on possible
revisions to compacts that may more accurately reflect accountability measures for SWD and
provide information about the process of initial goal setting and program restructuring based on
the introduction of the achievement compacts. The research also will provide district level
administrators with insight on the goal setting and program reform process which ultimately may
be examined for efficacy and provide insight to promising practices in program reform.
Ultimately, an examination of the research will help provide predictors if the achievement
compacts have a structure and implementation that likely will result in improved academic
outcomes for students with disabilities.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 114

This study provides a detailed analysis of special education accountability measures, goal
setting, and program reform in 3 large districts identified through a purposeful sampling
technique. Districts for study were selected based on multiple criteria which included between
750 and 5,000 students identified as in the students with disabilities subgroup, and a special
education identification rate of under 13.5%, and the requirement of having one primary director
responsible for the oversight of the special education population. The primary data collection
source was a 1:1 interview protocol with the leaders of special education programs. The
interview questions focused specifically on special education accountability, goal setting, and
reform. Each director was interviewed in person during October 2013 and the content of the
interviews were transcribed and coded to identify major categories and global themes.
Summary of Findings
The following will discuss the findings to the three 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?
2. What processes are district special education leaders engaging in to determine their
individual achievement goals for students with disabilities?
3. How are district special education leaders restructuring programs to reach achievement
compact goals?
The first research question centered on the indicators of success Oregon’s achievement
compact system used to measure accountability for students’ with disabilities. Although the
compacts have specific measures required, these measures have changed yearly with each new
version of the compact, and special education students are only loosely tied into the
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 115

accountability system. With the complexities of attempting to measure accountability for the
students with disabilities population, the broader question became what are the actual measures
that school districts are using to measure progress with this unique population.
A consistent theme throughout accountability with the special education directors was
that students with disabilities not only need to be held to a high standard and expected to make
growth, but the entire district needs to be responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities
make substantial progress and work to close the achievement gap. Each of the three districts
have supportive superintendents and cultures that have already embraced special education
students as belonging to all or are in journey towards an inclusive culture.
Accountability within special education for those districts is not limited to academic
achievement on state assessments, but also is strongly aligned to state compliance indicators as
measured through SPR&I system, district assessments, and IEP goals. Although the
achievement compacts are seen as an accountability measure, overall the compacts are seen as
another way of measuring growth and success using data that had been previously utilized. All
three directors were very mission driven; and although involved in the compacts, the
achievement compacts were not the driving force behind their work.
The next research question examined what processes district special education leaders
engaged in to determine their individual achievement goals for students with disabilities. A
common theme for the two districts whose directors participated in the achievement compact’s
committee was the fear of the unknown. Both districts felt that there was a lack of transparency
on what the State’s consequences were for not making targeted goals and what was the expected
level of goal setting. Until the initial compacts were returned, they felt there was little guidance
on the rigor of the goals that were being required. Additionally, there was a true fear of the
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 116

repercussions if the district failed to meet their goals. Each district’s initial impulse was to shoot
for strong and ambitious goals, but this was hindered in both instances by the fear of unknown
sanctions.
In Roosevelt, the largest of the districts, Special Education was not directly involved in
the actual goal setting for the achievement compacts. The department was absolutely mission
driven by the district’s strategic plan, but the achievement compacts did not factor into
department goal setting or practice. In fact, the director could succinctly and explicitly detail the
district’s strategic plans, goals, and how the department’s goals aligned, but she was unaware of
even broad details as it related to the achievement compacts.
In all three districts, there was a culture of goal setting process prior to the compacts
being introduced. All of the directors were also actively involved in multiple stakeholder groups
focused on district goal setting and planning. In the smaller districts, the special education
directors were directly involved in the goal setting for the achievement compact; whereas the
larger district had multiple committees to look at goals setting for the district. It was clear that
although there are set compact and district goals, when examining students with disabilities,
especially those on the moderate to severe spectrum, alternative measures are required to
determine if students are making meaningful progress rather than relying on standardized
measures or compact goals. The IEP goal planning process for individual student expectations
was critical in both accountability and ensuring that students are improving their achievement.
All three districts discussed the importance of training teams on goal setting practices to make
sure that they are standards based, measurable, and building upon strengths rather than a deficit
model.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 117

Based on lack of public information regarding the specific goals set by each district for
the 2012-2013 school year, an analysis of the measure of success was unable to be determined.
The measurement for students’ academic progress changed significantly from 2012-2013 to
2013-2014 compacts further complicating meaningful comparison. Districts goals for the 2013-
2014 school year across the board were minimal to moderate in nature with some districts
actually targeting a decline in performance. With the exception of one district, there was not a
significant difference between their general student population growth and disadvantaged student
population indicating that the achievement gap will likely not be closed.
The final research question focused on how district special education leaders restructured
programs to reach achievement compact goals. All three directors were extremely unified in their
responses for the driving factors behind program restructuring, the types of models being
transitioned to, the process for change, and OIEB’s achievement compacts influence on program
reform. The changing needs of their student population and the drive to increase performance
outcomes were the primary influences in making program reforms. All three districts are
working towards the integration of their mild/moderate population into general education in a
more collaborative method of instruction delivery with the hope of improved achievement
outcomes. Concerned about their overall, post-secondary outcomes, the districts are working on
program reforms for their moderate/severe populations to adopt cohesive curriculums aligned
with common core, strengthen functional instruction, and develop adult programs for improved
employment outcomes. The directors all work with focus groups and elicit stakeholder buy-in
prior to moving towards significant changes. Although not systematic program reform, all three
directors are actively working to increase parent involvement/participation and also refine their
IEP goal writing process to standards based goals with consistent measurement of mastery. The
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 118

OEIB’s achievement compact has had very limited influence in their drive to make
programmatic changes based on the needs of students in the district drive to increase
achievement and outcomes leading the way to incite program change.
It is important when examining the findings gleaned from this representative sample of
larger districts within Oregon to also 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.
Limitations
There are several limitations that need to be considered when reviewing the study’s
findings. The research was geographically bound based and the OEIB’s accountability system
which is limited to Oregon and therefore may lack broad applicability to other states.
Additionally even within the State of Oregon, due to the small sample size, the findings may lack
generalizability to other school districts, especially those with varying demographic profiles. A
potential major limitation emerged during the course of the study based on the director’s
responses. Those directors that responded to the query for participation were all self-reflective
and extremely focused on improving outcomes for their students. All three indicated that they
enjoyed working in their current districts because of the focus on shared accountability. This
sample may therefore be skewed towards leaders that are goal oriented and mission driven.
Also, since the primary method of data collection was a semi-structured interview, there is a
natural subjectivity in results and is based on the perception of special education leaders which
may not constitute a representative sample. Finally, with the numerous changes to the
achievement compact each year, there may be a lack of comparable meaningful data moving
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 119

forward as the achievement compacts continue to undergo revisions and changes which may
alter the overall implications of the study.
Recommendations for Future Research
When looking specifically at the OIEB’s achievement compacts, two major themes
emerge as areas of need for future research. The first area is the need for a quantitative study to
link the goal setting to outcomes to determine 1) are districts meeting their goals, 2) are students
making meaningful progress, and are 3) are the goals enabling the achievement gap to be closed.
The second area of study is to further explore the measures that are being used to capture student
data to determine if it provides meaningful information to measure student growth and
articulating the PreK-22 pipeline. For example, it is concerning that the last measure of reading
progress is in the 3
rd
grade which raises the question if 3
rd
grade reading proficiency equates to
lifelong literacy. Since the accountability system is relatively new, it is important that on-going
research be conducted on the achievement compact as an accountability tool to ensure the
effectiveness of the measure.
Looking specifically at special education practice and policy, there are several areas that
emerged from this study as requiring the need for additional research. The first need falls in the
area of IEP goals. Since IEP goals are being used widely as an accountability measure for
individual student growth, further research is required to determine if IEP goals are rigorous in
design, implementation, and accurately measure student progress over time. A second area of
need is apparent in the area of Federal Compliance measures which substantially drive district
practice. As suggested by the literature, Federal Compliance indicators are a significant
accountability tool used due to the link with federal funding and potential sanctions for non-
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 120

compliance. Further examination is warranted if these indicators actually improve student
outcomes and if data reported from states is a valid reflection of current levels of achievement.
Conclusion
As the common core wave and expiration of NCLB strikes the shores of education,
Oregon is again a pioneer leading the way. Being the first State to receive a NCLB waiver,
Oregon has developed an alternative accountability model based on achievement compacts.
Designed by the OEIB, these achievement compacts are intended to not only provide a
comprehensive state-wide accountability measure but also to help create a unified P-20 education
system that prepares Oregonians for careers to support Oregon’s economy. Districts engage in
their own goal setting process to determine what goals will be set for their unique district.
Rather than relying on a singular set of State-wide academic achievement scores, the compacts
use multiple indicators of success to measure district growth.
As revealed by this study, the achievement compacts have not equated to change within
the day-to-day practice of special educators or program reforms. Although there was awareness
of the compacts and participation in goal setting, student needs and district strategic plans drove
their activities. The primary accountability measures for students with disabilities continued to
be Federal Compliance Indicators, State wide testing, and individual IEP goals with little to no
emphasis placed on the achievement compact. The lack of communication from the OIEB to
districts led to very modest goal setting based on the fear of possible sanctions for not making
expected progress. Although the achievement compacts are required for the NCLB waiver
and by State law, there is not strong evidence that their presence or content will ultimately lead
to improved outcomes for students with disabilities. Ever-change accountability structure and
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 121

changes in the compacts year-to-year make it challenging to determine if meaningful student
progress is being made.
Under the new leadership of Nancy Golden, the OEIB may wish to look at the
transparency of comparable data year-to-year to ensure that there are clear through lines that can
be systematically followed and measured to ensure that Oregon’s students are prepared for
College/ Career and that Oregon is working to close the achievement gap for underachieving
populations. It is also recommended that the OEIB work to revise the achievement compacts to
more fully address the equity gap for struggling students.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 122

References
Albrecht, S., Skiba, R., Losen, D., Chung, C., & Middelberg, L. (2012). Federal Policy on
Disproportionality in Special Education Is it Moving us Forward? Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 23(1), 14-25.
Allbritten, D., Mainzer, R., & Ziegler, D. (2004). Will Students with Disabilities Be Scapegoats
for School Failures? educational HORIZONS, 82, 153-160.
Angeli, D. (2006). Oregon Legislature's Constitutional Obligation to Provide an Adequate
System of Public Education: Moving from Bold Rhetoric to Effective Action, The.
Willamette L. Rev., 42, 489.
Archibald, S. (2006). Narrowing in on educational resources that do affect student achievement.
Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 23-42.
Bellini, S., Henry, D., & Pratt, C. (2011). From intuition to data: Using logic models to measure
professional development outcomes for educators working with students on the autism
spectrum. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 34(1), 37-51.
Blanton, L., & Perez, Y. (2011). Exploring the relationship between special education teachers
and professional learning communities: Implications of research for administrators.
Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(1), 6-16.
Boscardin, M., McCarthy, E., & Delgado, R. (2009). An Integrated Research-Based Approach to
Creating Standards for Special Education Leadership. Journal of Special Education
Leadership, 22(2), 68-84.
Bouck, E. (2009). Functional curriculum models for secondary students with mild mental
impairment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44(4), 435.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 123

Brownell, M., Ross, D., Colón, E., & McCallum, C. (2005). Critical features of special education
teacher preparation. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242.
Brownell, M., Sindelar, P., Kiely, M., & Danielson, L. (2010). Special education teacher quality
and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children,
76(3), 357-377.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013a). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics 2012.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013b). Unemployment rates for states. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm.
Burns, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional
practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43(1), 3.
Burris, C., & Welner, K. (2005). Closing the achievement gap by detracking. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(8), 594-598.
California Department of Education. (2012). Reauthorization of IDEA 2004. Retrieved
September 25, 2012
Calvo, N., Picus, L., Smith, J., & Guthrie, J. (2000). The Oregon quality education model. In M.
A. a. P. Incorporated (Ed.). Davis, CA.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of
elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
Center on Education Policy. (2010). How Many Schools Have Not Made Adequate Yearly
Progress?
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 124

Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Conderman, G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary special
education. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 169-179.
Conley, D., & Picus, L. (2003). Oregon's quality education model: Linking adequacy and
outcomes. Educational Policy, 17(5), 586-612.
Cook, B., & Cook, S. (2011). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The
Journal of Special Education.
Cook, B., & Odom, S. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special
education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135-144.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for Creating Effective Practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
Cooper, J. (2011, September 6, 2011). Kitzhaber: Outdated education system needs change,
Deseret News.
Cramer, E., Liston, A., Nevin, A., & Thousand, J. (2010). Co-teaching in urban secondary school
districts to meet the needs of all teachers and learners: Implications for teacher education
reform. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(2).
Crew, R. (2013, February 10, 2013). [Discussion with USC OEIB Dissertation Group].
Curran, K., & Reivich, K. (2011). Goal setting and hope. Communiqué, 39(7).
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that work. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 125

Darling-Hammond, L., Alexander, M., & Price, D. (2002). Redesigning high schools: What
matters and what works. 10 features of good small schools. Stanford, CA: School
Redesign Network, Stanford University.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing district and
state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wholstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing
school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA:
Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
Federal Register: 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301 (2006).
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional
learning communities at work: Solution Tree Press.
Eco Northwest. (2010). Issue paper: Reforming Oregon's Local Option PRocess.
chalkboardproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/.../LocalOption.pdf
Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools accelerate
learning for struggling students: Education Trust.
Elbaum, B. (2012). Challenges in Interpreting Accountability Results for Schools’ Facilitation of
Parent Involvement Under IDEA. Journal of Disability Policy Studies.
Engel, J. (1992). Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century: Implications for the Profession and
Administrator Training.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 126

Feldman, J., Lucey, G., Goodrich, S., & Frazee, D. (2003). Developing an inquiry-minded
district. Educational Leadership, 60(5).
Finn Jr, C. E., Rotherham, A. J., & Hokanson Jr, C. R. (2001). Rethinking Special Education for
a New Century.
Ford, D. (2012). Culturally different students in special education: Looking backward to move
forward. Exceptional Children, 78(4), 391-405.
Friend, M. (2008). Co-Teach! A Handbook for Creating and Sustaining Effecive Classroom
Partnerships in Inclusive Schools. Greensboro, North Carolina: Marilyn Friend, Inc.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Stecker, P. (2010). The" blurring" of special education in a new
continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3),
301-323.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Golden, N. (2013). Memo regarding: Achievement compact. . Salem, OR: State of Oregon.
Gordon, S. (2006). Making sense of the inclusion debate under IDEA. BYU Educ. & LJ, 189.
Hammond, B. (2012, August 7, 2012). Oregon school officials set low goals, angering education
chief Rudy Crew, The Oregonian. Retrieved from
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/08/oregon_school_officials_set_lo.
html
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 127

Hammond, B. (2013). Nancy Golden replacing Rudy Crew as Oregon's chief aims to 'start fast'.
Oregonian Live.
http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2013/09/nancy_golden_replacing_rudy_
cr.html
Hancock, M., & Lamendola, B. (2005). A Leadership Journey. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 5.
Hang, Q., & Rabren, K. (2009). An Examination of Co-Teaching. Remedial and Special
Education, 30(5), 259.
Harr-Robins, J., Song, M., Hurlburt, S., Pruce, C., Danielson, L., Garet, M., & Taylor, J. (2012).
The Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in School Accountability Systems. Interim
Report. NCEE 2012-4056. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management
in Education, 22(1), 31-34.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hazelkorn, M., Bucholz, J., Goodman, J., Duffy, M., & Brady, M. (2010). Response to
Intervention: General or Special Education? Who Is Responsible? Paper presented at the
The Educational Forum.
Heward, W. (2003). Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness
of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4), 186-205.
Hoover, J. (2010). Special education eligibility decision making in response to intervention
models. Theory Into Practice, 49(4), 289-296.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 128

Jenkins, A., & Yoshimura, J. (2010). Not another inservice! Meeting the special education
professional development needs of elementary general educators. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 42(5), 36-44.
Johnson, D., Emanuel, E., Mack, M., Stodden, R., & Luecking, R. (2002). Current challenges
facing secondary education and transition services: What research tells us. Exceptional
Children, 68(4), 519-531.
Johnson, R. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity in our
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kaufman, R., & Ring, M. (2011). Pathways to leadership and professional development:
Inspiring novice special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 52-60.
Konrad, M., Helf, S., & Joseph, L. (2011). Evidence-based instruction is not enough: Strategies
for increasing instructional efficiency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(2), 67-74.
Kruegar, C. (2006). Policy Brief: The progress of P-16 collaboration. Denver, CO.
Kurz, A., Elliott, S., Wehby, J., & Smithson, J. (2010). Alignment of the intended, planned, and
enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student
achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 131-145.
LaRocque, M., Kleiman, I., & Darling, S. (2011). Parental involvement: The missing link in
school achievement. Preventing School Failure, 55(3), 115-122.
Lauen, D., & Gaddis, S. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of NCLB’s
subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 34(2), 185-208.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 129

Lemons, C., Kloo, A., Zigmond, N., Fulmer, D., & Lupp, L. (2012). Implementing an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards: When policy meets
practice. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 67-79.
Louis, K., Thomas, E., Gordon, M., & Febey, K. (2008). State leadership for school
improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4),
562-592.
Mahaley, H., Maisterra, A., & Boatright, M. (2012). Special education monitoring & compliance
manual (IDEA Part B). Washington, DC: Retrieved from
http://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/publication/attachments/LEA%20Comp
liance%20Monitoring%20Manual_v9.12_0.pdf.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action: Association for
Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
McHatton, P., Glenn, T., & Gordon, K. (2012). Troubling Special Education Leadership: Finding
Purpose, Potential, and Possibility in Challenging Contexts. Journal of Special Education
Leadership, 25(1), 38-47.
McIntire, T. (2005). Data: Maximize your mining - sustained student achievement is the ultimate
goal of data mining, but efficient analysis is key to getting there. Technology & Learning,
25(9). http://www.techlearning.com/section/MagazineArchive
McLaughlin, M., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Educational accountability and students with
disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431-451.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 130

McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Hoppey, D., & Williamson, P. (2011). Learning Disabilities and the
LRE Mandate: An Examination of National and State Trends. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26(2), 60-66.
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward
education students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special
Education, 46(3), 131-140.
NICHCY. (2013a). Contents of the IEP. Retrieved March 1,, 2013, from
http://nichcy.org/schoolage/iep/iepcontents
NICHCY. (2013b). Part B Indicators. Retrieved March 1, 2013, 2013, from
http://nichcy.org/laws/idea/partb/indicators-partb
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Odden, A. (2009). 10 strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2009). Doubling student performance:... and finding the resources
to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odom, S., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2005). Research
in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional
Children, 71(2), 137-148.
Oregon Business Council. (2000). An assessment of Oregon’s K – 12 education reform. In K.-E.
T. Force (Ed.). Portland, OR: Oregon Business Council.
Oregon Department of Education. (2006). Memo # 004-2006-07 Changes in the Oregon
Statewide Assessment System -- Effective Immediately. Salem, OR: Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?=1698.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 131

Oregon Department of Education. (2007a). Memo # 006-2007-08 - Transition of CIM and CAM
to the New Diploma. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Educaiton.
Oregon Department of Education. (2007b). Oregon education data book. 2: Detailed Tables by
District.
Oregon Department of Education. (2007c). Special Education Due Process Hearing Rules.
Oregon: Secretary of State Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/services/disputeresolution/dueprocess/comboarsfordphear.pdf.
Oregon Department of Education. (2011a). 2010-11 Final AYP Report (Public). Salem, OR:
Oregon Department of Education.
Oregon Department of Education. (2011b). Annual performance report (APPR) for the fiscal
year (2010-2011). Salem: Department of Education.
Oregon Department of Education. (2011c). Complaint Log 2011. Retrieved March 1,, 2013,
from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3267
Oregon Department of Education. (2011d). Extended Assessment 2011-2012: Cut Scores, Impact
Data ,and Achievement Descriptors. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education
Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/standards/contentperformance/standards_cutscores
_alds-chapter_2011final.pdf.
Oregon Department of Education. (2011e). Inclusion Rules for Accountability Reports 2010-
2011. Salem, OR: Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/docs/asmtinclusionrules1011.pdf.
Oregon Department of Education. (2011f). Oregon Annual Performance Report (APR) 2011.
Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/initiatives/idea/sppapr/apr2011b.pdf.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 132

Oregon Department of Education. (2012a). 2011-12 test results for reading, math, science, and
writing released.
Oregon Department of Education. (2012b). Next Generation of Accountability. Retrieved
March 30, 2013, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3475
Oregon Department of Education. (2012c). Statewide Report Card An Annual Report to Oregon
Legislature on Oregon Public Schools.
Oregon Department of Education. (2013a). Oregon's Extended Assessments. Retrieved March
1, 2013, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=2691
Oregon Department of Education. (2013b). School and District Report Cards. Salem, Oregon:
Oregon.gov.
Oregon Department of Education. (2013c). Testing- Student Assessment. Retrieved March 1,
2013, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=169
Oregon Education Association. (2012a). Oregon Education Investment Board and Achievement
Compacts OEA Review and Recommendations.
Oregon Education Association. (2012b). Oregon’s Request for NCLB Waiver. In G. Rasmussen
& A. Vaandering (Eds.), Letter to Senators Wyden and Merkley.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2011). Oregon Learns: Executive Summary Report to the
Legislature from the Oregon Education Investment Board.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012a). Achievement compacts: Questions and answers.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012b). Chief Education Officer Deliverables. Salem, OR:
State of Oregon.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012c). Education Achievement Compact.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 133

Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012d). Guidance for Completion of Achievement
Compacts for 2012-13.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013). A Proposal for a Regional Achievement Compact
Pilot.
Oregon Schools Boards Association. (2005). Covering Education A Reporter's Guide to
Education in Oregon. Salem, Oregon.
Oregon Secretary of State. (2010). Stakeholder Input Workshop: Oregon's Special Education
System: The Public Strategies Group.
Oregon Secretary of State. (2013a). Oregon Blue Book: Public Education in Oregon.
Retrieved March 30, 2013, 2013, from
http://bluebook.state.or.us/education/educationintro.htm
Oregon Secretary of State. (2013b). Oregon Blue Book: Governor John Kitzhaber. Retrieved
March 30,, 2013, from
http://bluebook.state.or.us/state/executive/Office_Governor/govbio.htm
Oregon.gov. (2012a). Oregon Education Investment Board – Glossary of Terms. Retrieved
March 31, 2013, from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/oeibglossary1207.pdf
Oregon.gov. (2012b). Oregon Education Investment Board: What is the OEIB? Retrieved
March 1, , 2013, from
http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/Pages/oeib/OregonEducationInvestmentBoard.aspx
Oregon.gov. (2013a). About John Kitzhaber Retrieved March 30, 2013
Oregon.gov. (2013b). Chief Education Officer. Retrieved March 30, , 2013, from
http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/Pages/oeib/OregonEducationInvestmentBoard.aspx#Chief_
Education_Officer
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 134

Oregon.gov. (2013c). Education Service Districts Transparency Retrieved March 30, 2013, from
http://www.oregon.gov/transparency/Pages/ESDTransparency.aspx
Parker, D. (2006). Strategic Schooling: Theoretical underpinnings. Presentation materials.
Sacramento, CA.
Project ALDER. (2011). Oregon Education Investment Board. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from
http://alder.orvsd.org/content/senate-bill-909-implementation
Ramirez, S. (2010). Feedback model makes changes in education. Journal of Business Studies
Quarterly, 1(2), 10-31.
Rea, P., McLaughlin, V., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning
disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203-223.
Scott, G. (2012). K-12 Education: Selected States and School Districts Cited Numerous Federal
Requirements as Burdensome, While Recognizing Some Benefits. Report to
Congressional Requesters. GAO-12-672. US Government Accountability Office.
Scull, J., & Winkler, A. (2011). Shifting trends in special education. Washington: Thomas B.
Fordham Institute.
Shapiro, L. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill
improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology V.
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Sindelar, P., Brownell, M., & Billingsley, B. (2010). Special education teacher education
research: Current status and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education:
The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,
33(1), 8-24.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 135

Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Gibb, A., Rausch, M., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. G. (2008a).
Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.
Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.
Skiba, R., Simmons, S., Ritter, M., Gibb, A., Rausch, M., Cuadrado, G., & Chung, C. (2008b).
Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.
Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.
Skinner, C. (2010). Applied comparative effectiveness researchers must measure learning rates:
A commentary on efficiency articles. Psychology in the Schools, 47(2), 166-172.
Smith, D., Robb, S., West, J., & Tyler, N. (2010). The changing education landscape: How
special education leadership preparation can make a difference for teachers and their
students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33(1), 25-43.
Smith, D., Truong, A., Watson, R., Hartley, M., Robb, S., & Gilmore, R. (2011). The federal role
in the preparation of special education doctorates: An analysis of the office of special
education programs’ leadership preparation initiative. Teacher Education and Special
Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children, 34(4), 267-282.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Senate Bill 253 (2011a).
Senate Bill 909 (2011b).
Senate Bill 1581 (2012).
State of Oregon. (2013). Oregon Education Investment Board. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from
http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/Pages/oeib/OregonEducationInvestmentBoard.aspx
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 136

Steinbrecher, T., McKeown, D., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2013). Comparing validity and
reliability in special education title II and IDEA Data. Exceptional Children, 79(3), 313-
327.
Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta
Kappan, 90(9), 640-644.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258.
Sullivan, A., & Artiles, A. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education applying
structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46(6), 1526-1552.
Supovitz, J., & Turner, H. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching
practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-
980.
Thompson, A. (2011). Case in Point: Illuminations for the Future of Special Education
Leadership. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 111-113.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to
improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The Learning First
Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Turnbull, H., Huerta, N., Stowe, M., Weldon, L., & Schrandt, S. (2009). The individuals with
disabilities education act as amended in 2004: Pearson.
Turnbull III, H., Turnbull, A., Wehmeyer, M., & Park, J. (2003). A quality of life framework for
special education outcomes. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 67-74.
US Department of Education. (2011). Building the Legacy: IDEA 2004. Retrieved March 13,
2012, from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 137

Vanderstek, C. (2009). Core Values and Beliefs of Oregon School Reform. Salem, OR: Oregon
Department of Education.
Vannest, K., Hagan-Burke, S., Parker, R., & Soares, D. (2011). Special education teacher time
use in four types of programs. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(4), 219-230.
Vannest, K., & Parker, R. (2010). Measuring Time The Stability of Special Education Teacher
Time Use. The Journal of Special Education, 44(2), 94-106.
Venezia, A., Callan, P. M., Finney, J. E., Kirst, M. W., & Usdan, M. D. (2005). The governance
divide: A report on four-state study on improving college readiness and success: The
Institute for Educational Leadership; The National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education; and The Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.
Venezia, A., & Kirst, M. W. (2006). The goverance divide: The case study for Oregon: The
Institute for Educational Leadership; The National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education; and The Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80-91.
Volonino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting Research-Based Practices Through Inclusion?
Theory Into Practice, 46(4), 291-300.
Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2011). Is a three-tier reading intervention model associated with
reduced placement in special education? Remedial and Special Education, 32(2), 167-
175.
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 138

Wei, R., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Stanford, CA: School Redesign
Network, Stanford University.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., Woody, E., Levin, J., & Studier, C. (2005). Similar students,
different results: Why do some schools do better: EdSource.
Woody, E., & Henne, M. (2006). Addressing the needs of low-income students. In PACE (Ed.),
Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp. 119-132). Berkeley,
CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 139

Appendix A
2011-2012 Oregon State Oaks Scores
Subject Grade Subgroup 2011-12
% Meet or
Exceed
Achievement
Gap
Math 03 All Students 64 28
Math 03 Students with Disabilities 36
Math 04 All Students 66 31
Math 04 Students with Disabilities 35
Math 05 All Students 59 33
Math 05 Students with Disabilities 26
Math 06 All Students 59 37
Math 06 Students with Disabilities 22
Math 07 All Students 63 39
Math 07 Students with Disabilities 24
Math 08 All Students 65 40
Math 08 Students with Disabilities 25
Math 11 All Students 66 45
Math 11 Students with Disabilities 21
Math All All Students 63 36
Math All Students with Disabilities 27
Reading 03 All Students 70 34
Reading 03 Students with Disabilities 36
Reading 04 All Students 74 36
Reading 04 Students with Disabilities 38
Reading 05 All Students 69 68
Reading 05 Students with Disabilities 31
Reading 06 All Students 65 41
Reading 06 Students with Disabilities 24
Reading 07 All Students 75 43
Reading 07 Students with Disabilities 32
Reading 08 All Students 68 43
Reading 08 Students with Disabilities 25
Reading 11 All Students 84 39
Reading 11 Students with Disabilities 45
Reading All All Students 72 39
Reading All Students with Disabilities 33
Science 05 All Students 69 29
Science 05 Students with Disabilities 40
Science 08 All Students 66 35
Science 08 Students with Disabilities 31
Science 11 All Students 64 38
Science 11 Students with Disabilities 26
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 140

Science All All Students 66 33
Science All Students with Disabilities 33
Writing 11 All Students 67 45
Writing 11 Students with Disabilities 22
Writing All All Students 67 45
Writing All Students with Disabilities 22
Note: Adapted from Oregon Department of Education. (2011a). 2010-11 Final AYP Report (Public).
Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 141

Appendix B
Qualitative Data Collection

Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each district’s strategies for special
education accountability, goal setting, and reform. Questions should be asked in the order they
appear on the protocol. Responses should be recorded and clarifying questions asked to ensure
that key elements of accountability, goal setting, and reform are obtained.
I. Accountability: What indicators of success is Oregon’s achievement compact system
using to measure accountability for students with disabilities (SWD)?
 Can you discuss what indicators of success are used to measure special education
population growth in your district? (District level, State Level, Federal Level, program,
individual student level)
 Have there been changes in the measures of accountability for SWD since the OEIB’s
introduction of the achievement compacts? (probe previous and current)
 How does the SWD subgroup factor into your district’s overall accountability program?
 How is the subgroup viewed by general education leaders?
 Are SWD held to the same performance standards or are their alternative performance
standards and assessments? (probe OAKS 2%, 1%, benchmarks, etc.)

II. Goal Setting: What processes are district special education leaders engaging in to
determine their individual achievement goals for students with disabilities?
 When setting target achievement goals for SWD’s, who are the stakeholders that
participate in the goal setting process? (superintendent, board, state, federal, school sites)
 How do you determine the areas of improvement to focus on?
 How do you determine what is a reasonably calculated program goal? (what data do you
use, etc.)
 Once a goal is determined, how is the information disseminated?

III. Program Restructuring: How are district special education leaders restructuring
programs to reach achievement compact goals?
 Can you talk to me about the factors that contribute to your decision to restructure your
special education programs? (Federal/state mandates, district initiatives, goals, student
need)
 When re-designing programs, what are the most important factors you consider in your
restructuring? (Compliance, student need, cost, unions, etc.)
 Can you describe the level of district support you have when you implement new
programs and initiatives for SWD?
 Can you discuss your roll-out process for new programs?
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 142

 Can you discuss your process for eliciting staff buy in on new programming? (When
faced with resistance, what techniques do you use?)
 Can you discuss your process for eliciting parent agreement to changes in programs and
offers of FAPE?
 Have you restructured any programs as a result of the achievement compacts? (If yes,
query specifics)
 How do you evaluate that a reform effort has been successful?

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 143

Appendix C
Johnson School District Oaks Score Comparison

Subject Grade Subgroup 2011-12
% Meet
or
Exceed
2012-13
% Meet
or
Exceed
%Growth %2012-2013 Achievement
Gap Between Non-disabled
students and Students with
Disabilities
Math 03 S w/out D 65 58 -7 30
Math 03 SWD 33 28 -5
Math 04 S w/out D 70 63 -7 31
Math 04 SWD 34 32 -2
Math 05 S w/out D 76 65 -11 37
Math 05 SWD 22 28 +6
Math 06 S w/out D 76 75 -1 52
Math 06 SWD 29 23 -1
Math 07 S w/out D 74 72 -2 49
Math 07 SWD 23 23 0
Math 08 S w/out D 70 75 +5 55
Math 08 SWD 16 20 +4
Math 11 S w/out D 67 65 -2 50
Math 11 SWD 9 15 +6
Math All S w/out D 69 67 -2 42
Math All SWD 24 25 +1
Reading 03 S w/out D 73 64 -9 38
Reading 03 SWD 28 26 -2
Reading 04 S w/out D 22 70 -2 33
Reading 04 SWD 36 37 +1
Reading 05 S w/out D 77 71 -6 39
Reading 05 SWD 36 32 -4
Reading 06 S w/out D 69 64 -5 47
Reading 06 SWD 29 17 -12
Reading 07 S w/out D 67 75 +12 45
Reading 07 SWD 20 30 +10
Reading 08 S w/out D 74 65 -9 44
Reading 08 SWD 31 21 -10
Reading 11 S w/out D 84 81 -3 42
Reading 11 SWD 32 39 +7
Reading All S w/out D 73 70 -3 41
Reading All SWD 28 29 +1
Science 05 S w/out D 63 69 +6 32
Science 05 SWD 37 37 0
Science 08 S w/out D 58 68 +10 39
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 144

Science 08 SWD 12 29 +17
Science 11 S w/out D 58 56 -2 38
Science 11 SWD 12 18 +6
Science All S w/out D 62 65 +3 36
Science All SWD 25 29 +4
Writing 11/All S w/out D 70 55 -15 40
Writing 11/All SWD 19 15 -4
Note: Data taken from Oregon Department of Education, Education Data Explorer.41

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 145

Appendix D
Monroe School District Oaks Score Comparison

Subject Grade Subgroup 2011-12
% Meet
or
Exceed
2012-13
% Meet
or Exceed
Growth 2012-2013 Achievement
Gap
Math 03 S w/out D 86 73 -13 31
Math 03 SWD 56 42 -14
Math 04 S w/out D 89 83 -6 40
Math 04 SWD 47 43 -4
Math 05 S w/out D 86 80 -6 47
Math 05 SWD 51 32 -19
Math 06 S w/out D 82 76 -6 53
Math 06 SWD 33 23 -10
Math 07 S w/out D 84 83 -1 48
Math 07 SWD 34 35 +1
Math 08 S w/out D 81 80 -1 54
Math 08 SWD 29 26 -3
Math 11 S w/out D 82 84 +2 48
Math 11 SWD 30 36 +6
Math All S w/out D 84 80 -4 46
Math All SWD 41 34 -7
Reading 03 S w/out D 89 81 -8 32
Reading 03 SWD 50 49 -1
Reading 04 S w/out D 93 91 -2 42
Reading 04 SWD 51 49 -2
Reading 05 S w/out D 88 86 -2 43
Reading 05 SWD 48 43 -5
Reading 06 S w/out D 84 83 -1 56
Reading 06 SWD 31 27 -4
Reading 07 S w/out D 89 88 -1 44
Reading 07 SWD 24 44 +20
Reading 08 S w/out D 85 86 -1 55
Reading 08 SWD 26 31 +5
Reading 11 S w/out D 92 95+ +3 32
Reading 11 SWD 51 63 +12
Reading All S w/out D 88 87 -1 43
Reading All SWD 40 44 +4
Science 05 S w/out D 91 88 -3 31
Science 05 SWD 62 57 -5
Science 08 S w/out D 84 80 -4 45
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 146

Science 08 SWD 33 35 +2
Science 11 S w/out D 81 83 +2 54
Science 11 SWD 40 29 -11
Science All S w/out D 86 83 -3 43
Science All SWD 46 40 -6
Writing 11/All S w/out D 89 82 +7 34
Writing 11/All SWD 31 48 +17
Note: Data taken from Oregon Department of Education, Education Data Explorer.

OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 147

Appendix E
Roosevelt School District Oaks Score Comparison

Subject Grade Subgroup 2011-12
% Meet
or
Exceed
2012-13
% Meet
or
Exceed
Growth 2012-2013 Achievement
Gap
Math 03 S w/out D 69 61 -8 33
Math 03 SWD 31 28 -3
Math 04 S w/out D 73 70 -3 43
Math 04 SWD 36 27 -9
Math 05 S w/out D 67 63 -4 40
Math 05 SWD 26 23 -3
Math 06 S w/out D 62 66 +4 43
Math 06 SWD 21 23 +2
Math 07 S w/out D 61 58 -3 44
Math 07 SWD 17 14 -3
Math 08 S w/out D 67 64 -3 45
Math 08 SWD 19 19 0
Math 11 S w/out D 78 78 0 54
Math 11 SWD 23 24 +1
Math All S w/out D 68 66 -2 44
Math All SWD 25 22 -3
Reading 03 S w/out D 77 67 -10 38
Reading 03 SWD 31 29 -2
Reading 04 S w/out D 80 78 -2 49
Reading 04 SWD 37 29 -8
Reading 05 S w/out D 78 78 -4 42
Reading 05 SWD 29 29
3
Reading 06 S w/out D 74 74 0 48
Reading 06 SWD 27 32 1
Reading 07 S w/out D 80 79 -1 53
Reading 07 SWD 32 26 -6
Reading 08 S w/out D 69 71
2
43
Reading 08 SWD 18 28 +10
Reading 11 S w/out D 90 91 +1 44
Reading 11 SWD 44 47 +3
Reading All S w/out D 78 76 -2 45
Reading All SWD 30 31 +1
Science 05 S w/out D 75 73 -2 39
Science 05 SWD 37 34 -3
OREGON SPECIAL EDUCATION 148

Science 08 S w/out D 67 67 0 38
Science 08 SWD 20 29 +9
Science 11 S w/out D 68 65 -3 39
Science 11 SWD 32 31 -1
Science All S w/out D 70 68 -2 37
Science All SWD 30 31 -1
Writing 11/All S w/out D 71 62 -9 41
Writing 11/All SWD 17 21 +4
Note: Data taken from Oregon Department of Education, Education Data Explorer.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The following qualitative study examines the interaction between Oregon’s new achievement compact accountability system and special education. Specifically, Oregon’s achievement compacts were examined to determine the measures of accountability included as indicators of success for students with disabilities, how districts determined their individual achievement goals, and how special education programming was restructured to meet those goals. The study provides detailed analysis of special education accountability measures, goal setting, and program reform in 3 large districts in Oregon obtained from interviews with special education directors and examination of district data. ❧ Findings showed a consistent theme that students with disabilities need to be held to a high standard and expected to make growth

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

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

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

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

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

PDF

A gap analysis study of one southern California unified school district's allocation of resources in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

District allocation of human resources utilizing the evidence based model: a study of one high achieving school district in southern California

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress

PDF

Reallocating human resources to maximize student achievement: a critical case study of a southern California school district

PDF

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

PDF

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

PDF

Home and school factors and their influence on students' academic goal orientation and motivation

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

Asset Metadata

Creator Lohrman, Diane (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/31/2014

Defense Date 01/16/2014

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

Tag accountability,achievement compact,Disability,goal setting,IEP,OAI-PMH Harvest,Oregon,reform,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), Selig, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email blazedanger@gmail.com,dlohrman@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-370483

Unique identifier UC11296233

Identifier etd-LohrmanDia-2308.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-370483 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LohrmanDia-2308.pdf

Dmrecord 370483

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lohrman, Diane

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