This article identifies research and trends in outcomes and outcomes measurement for students during their compulsory years of schooling, focusing particularly on those with special educational needs. It examines the current status of outcomes at a national level and identifies major issues associated with outcomes focussed education with respect to inclusion. Finally, it proposes a model for considering how to develop an outcomes-focused approach at a school level, that caters for the needs of all students and especially those with diverse abilities.
Many school systems in Australia have been moving towards greater self-management in recent years. School-based decision making is promoted in the context of greater flexibility and autonomy. This allows schools the freedom to improve their teaching and learning and empowers them to respond more effectively to the strengths and needs of their students. As Newmann and Wehlage (1996) suggest, 'The task for schools, then, is not simply to offer space and opportunity for individual teachers to teach. It is to organize human, technical, and social resources into an effective collective enterprise' (pp. 29-30). Concomitantly, it is important to ensure that all students are able to access equal educational opportunities. Without proper accountability frameworks devolution of financial management to a school level may lead to greater inequality of service provision for students with special needs (Forlin & Forlin 1996).
In New Zealand, the Picot Report led to a Government Policy document entitled 'Tomorrow's Schools' (Snook 1998). This policy advocates the introduction of self managing schools. Although schools are self managing there is now a National Curriculum in New Zealand and a new assessment regime. According to Wylie (1997), most teachers and principals consider that the self managing policy has led to improved learning for students but that it has been less successful in achieving equality for children from disadvantaged groups. School based management in Australia varies on a state-by-state basis.
In Queensland, for example, the implementation of school-based management in government schools is posited to be a 'holistic transformation of the department which involves the development of a new cultural identity ... which involves focusing all our energies, resources, knowledge and skills towards improving student learning outcomes' (Sullivan 1998, p. 12). Sullivan proposes that this will involve several key areas of change at the systemic level. Such changes may then allow transformation in schools to occur which will in turn promote improved learning outcomes for all students. Although Queensland government schools will become more independent over time, they may have fewer powers than in other devolved educational systems. In 1993 in Victoria, they implemented the 'Schools of the Future' program and this appears to have involved a high percentage of their state's education budget being decentralised to schools.
In most Australian states, although school councils tend to be allocated responsibility for establishing the broad direction for schools, principals are usually given responsibility for day-to-day operations. In many instances states still retain the function of the allocation and payment of staff, the management of statewide transfer systems, and the development of overarching frameworks of systemic policy. Other issues such as students in poverty and aspects of disadvantage are also addressed system wide. Curriculum development mainly occurs centrally and continues to be managed by independent statutory authorities (such as the Queensland Studies Authority).
Some jurisdictions have a system of totally school-based moderated education. This means that schools have responsibility for assessment decisions, and for special consideration decisions that provide students with an equal opportunity to show what they know and what they can do. Others utilise a combination of school-based moderation and external examinations.
In order to provide the most appropriate education for all students, Individual Education Plans (IEPs) are developed for students with high support needs. This ensures that students with disabilities have access to, participate in, and gain positive outcomes from schooling through a range of curriculum options across primary, secondary, and special schools. The IEP is negotiated and developed by a team that usually includes the students (where possible), parents/caregivers, regular class teacher, support teacher and other significant personnel. A review of a student's IEP assists in implementing, assessing, and reporting a student's educational outcomes. For older students with special educational needs an Individual Transition Plan (ITP) is produced through a similar process, which aims to link school achievement with post-school options.
Standards can be equated to benchmarks against which student's achievements are measured (DEETYA 1998). Nationally agreed benchmarks provide a standard to measure system success in improving performance. Reporting using national benchmarks will allow for comparisons at both intra and interstate levels.
The following model for diversity provides a systematic approach for responding to key issues associated with identifying, measuring and reporting outcomes for students with special educational needs. Significant implementation issues that consider opportunity to learn (OTL), accountability, assessment, accommodations, adaptations and exemptions are also addressed. In proposing this model the following assumptions are made:
To ensure inclusivity, it may be best to define effectiveness indicators and learning outcomes for students with special educational needs within the context of outcomes for all students. According to Olsen (1994), this could work provided that the special needs of students for accommodations, access, adaptation, and compensation can be met.
Of major concern is whether it is possible to write non-specific generic outcomes that would be suitable for either all students or for all students with special educational needs. Will it be possible for all par ties to agree on such outcomes for school aged children regardless of specific disability or learning difficulty? In which case, how specific should outcomes be? Are the outcomes the same for people with different disabilities such as those who have an intellectual, or physical, disability or those who have a vision or hearing impairment? If outcomes are produced for different categories of disability should these also take into account the degree of the disability? At least one USA state (Michigan) has developed different outcome categories (for example, in basic academics, language and communication) for students with different disabilities such as learning disabilities, emotional disabilities and visual disabilities (Thurlow & Ysseldyke 1994).
A further concern is whether the current Key Learning Areas (KLAs) generally employed in each jurisdiction, are the most appropriate and suitable for identifying learning outcomes for students with special educational needs. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) in the USA, for example, has developed a conceptual model of educational outcomes which includes eight major domains that are appropriate for all students (Ysseldyke & Thurlow 1994b). Their model includes possible indicators for each outcome for various grade levels. A key feature of the NCEO Model is that it incorporates five non-academic domains, which include appropriate outcomes and indicators within each of them. This model evolved through a collaborative process and provides a comprehensive set of outcomes of schooling suitable for all children with or without disabilities.
The following key decisions now need to be made as they are critical for identifying the outcomes to be used if moving towards an inclusive educational approach:
The system of school-based assessment in Australia can provide schools with considerable flexibility to develop work programs that meet the needs of their particular student clientele. By localising such decisions, different school groups are able to address their different patterns of subject choice and achievement, different aspirations, and different post-school-options of their students. It is important to provide schools and the community with more information relevant to what they are trying to achieve. It is also important to determine exactly how outcomes are to be assessed for all students. Examples of assessment that would cater for diverse student groups could include norm-referenced; criterion-based; IEP aggregate; secondary analysis; accreditation; or performance-based assessments. For teachers in New South Wales, for example, the use of outcomes has clarified the nature of assessment for them and has provided a focus on what students need to achieve thus making the programs less content driven. The major problem associated with the use of profiles by NSW teachers has been the increased workload that is demanded of them (Brady 1997).
There would seem to be a need to standardise definitions across federal and state government systems in Australia regarding outcomes. Such questions as: how will outcomes be measured particularly for students with differing impairments? and how will outcomes be measured in a school-based environment? need to be addressed. If outcomes are to make sense it is important to clarify exactly what inputs are available, as these will vary between schools. Schools will need to be responsive to the specific needs of their own students. How will achievement in a holistic sense, then, be reported when students are participating in a wide range of options? In what ways can students best show what they know and what they can do? Various alternative approaches to measuring outcomes can be employed that are suitable for all children. These can include performance assessments such as portfolios (Griffin & Smith 1997), interviews, observation, or exhibition (Shriner et al. 1994), together with the more traditional approaches.
A critical issue that needs to be addressed at both a school and systemic level is that of the use of accommodations, adaptations or exemptions for some students when measuring outcomes. The purpose of accommodations is to change the environment to facilitate the successful participation of all students. Accommodations can include modifications to the learning environment, the curricula, or instruction. To ensure that core skills requirements and the demands of external written tests do not deny access to a significant number of people with special educational needs, various accommodations may need to be readily available.
In the USA, many students with disabilities are excluded from large-scale assessment programs at national, state and local levels. This means that they are invariably not considered and that estimates of performance are not comparable among states due to differential participation rates. In some cases, however, accommodations are made such as the presentation of the assessment, the response of the student, the setting of the assessment, and the timing or scheduling of the assessment (Thurlow 1994). Specific adaptations may also include grouping questions under headings; oral reading of a test; allowing students to use notes; having extra spaces for answers; including practice questions; and simplifying the wording of questions (Jayanthi et al. 1996). The most helpful adaptation perceived by general educators in the USA has been reading the directions to the student.
In Australia, there is a strong tradition of making accommodations for students. For example, in Victoria and Western Australia, special consideration for exit certificates can involve variation of the substantive requirements of a subject. In Victoria, it is also possible to obtain an estimated result where substantive requirements have not been met. In Queensland, specific guidelines have been written that relate to examinations. Issues of special consideration are considered on an individual needs basis and are not determined by categorising students with a specific disability.
A key challenge is how to provide schools with the best possible support in making professional judgments regarding the provision of what constitutes an appropriate accommodation, as part of school-based assessment. According to Shriner et al. (1994), assessments, which have an impact on the student's future, should involve accommodations when necessary. There is also a need to address the issue of equity when students with disabilities or learning difficulties are allowed to use supplementary devices. It has been demonstrated by Whiting (1996), however, that in Australia, the use of a writer in an examination for example, does not advantage students.
Evaluation of student outcomes may be best effected when informed by a conceptual model of the program being evaluated. Such a multi-level model could incorporate a variety of variables that assess learning outcomes (academic, social, and vocational), school programs, instructional practices, services offered, availability of resources, school contexts, parent/community involvement, and leadership among others. This would link inputs, processes, and outcomes across all domains and also contextualise outcomes and provide a means of identifying the interrelationships between them.
The following decisions need to be made:
Reporting is typically of two types, namely, a) reporting at a system level (for example, to an Education Department) for accountability purposes; and b) reporting to parents about student achievement. Reporting of student outcomes needs to consider the system, the school, and the student. Outcomes, which are reported at a classroom level tend to assess what Willis and Kissane (1995) refer to as the 'enacted curriculum' or what has been actually taught. Assessments, which are developed at a school or system level, though, tend to report the 'intended curriculum'. In an outcomes-based approach, Willis and Kissane (1995) argue that neither of these should be seen as providing accountability but that reporting should be based on determining whether outcomes have been achieved and identifying where problems may have occurred. Reporting at a school level is most commonly done through the use of written report cards, which may be supplemented by parent conferences or alternative informal meetings. School level reporting can also be used to inform students about their own learning. When an IEP is used, the learning outcomes for each child should be clearly identifiable. Reporting on the achievement of IEP goals, that are linked to identified outcomes, ensures that reporting is outcomes-focused. There is a need for awareness of teachers' workloads if they are required to report by using both outcomes and an IEP for students with special educational needs.
If reporting of outcomes is not to be linked to accountability, as posited by Willis and Kissane (1995), then the issue needs to be addressed of how schools will be held accountable for ensuring that students with diverse needs are able to access suitable programs so that they may achieve appropriate outcomes. In addition, consideration should be given to whether accountability refers to all students and what community expectations are for students with special educational needs. A further major issue that has arisen regarding gathering accountability data is that of peoples' attitudes and opinions. Attitude has been found to influence a range of issues such as commitment to accountability and agreeing on outcomes and standards. Accountability problems may be overcome by staff development or by seeking consensus. Is it, therefore, productive to advocate statewide accountability procedures for students with disabilities? The National Centre on Educational Outcomes in the USA promotes the notion that accountability for all students is essential. They state:
The entire outcomes, standards, performance, and accountability enterprise is intended to motivate all students to achieve higher levels ... All students have the right, and must receive the opportunity, to learn to meet high, rigorous content standards. 'All' can mean 'All'... As educators we can set the example by putting forth our best efforts to help as many students as possible learn more and lead more productive lives. Anything less implies that our personal best is not important enough to move us to higher standards. (Shriner 1994a, pp. 41-42)In the USA, federal laws such as IDEA together with Goals 2000, have mandated that schools provide the necessary compliance mechanisms to ensure continued access for all students to appropriate services. It is proposed by Danielson and Malouf (1994), however, that more decentralised, flexible, and locally driven reforms may be needed to improve educational outcomes for students with special educational needs. In this scenario, educational accountability could be achieved through a co-operative school-based approach that involves the collection of relevant and useful information. Data about how students are accessing schooling, the ways they are participating in it and their achievements could be used to inform schools, parents, the community and governments. As well as numerical reporting, Shriner et al. (1994) propose that accountability should also provide evidence of the degree to which decisions are based on educational or psychological judgment.
A number of questions need to be addressed regarding reporting outcomes: To whom should outcomes be reported? What format should reporting take: formal v informal, using existing reporting frameworks, or developing new procedures? Will demonstrated outcomes be linked to post school options for further study? A further crucial question exists regarding the linking of learning outcomes to existing programs and the issue of individual learning outcomes forming a component of certifications. Should learning outcomes at a school level, therefore, be linked to employment? While some states, for example Queensland, currently have no formal statement on outcomes for students who are leaving at Year 12, (although the Year 10 certificate does allow for this), other states, such as Western Australia, now insist that Years 11 and 12 focus on learning outcomes for all students. The difficulty arises when students who have completed their final year of schooling are unable to receive formal certification as they are undertaking learning programs that cannot be reported easily in terms of state and national standards. While most senior certificates usually report a broad range of achievements they do not usually have the capacity to include outcomes achieved within individual programs.
The decisions to be made are:
There are many school factors, that could be considered to either support OTL or act as barriers, which will prevent students from having the most appropriate opportunities for learning. There is a need to consider a range of OTL standards, which can loosely be classified into four perspectives. The first is that of school delivery which includes standards that aim to protect students from being held responsible for failing to reach the required learning outcomes. Second, OTL standards operate at a systemic level which can include the provision of teacher training and of appropriate textbooks. Third, OTL standards relate to the quality of inputs such as well trained teachers and the provision of high quality instructional materials. Fourth, is the allocation of time for learning in a task that can be performed with high success. These issues need to be considered in relation to all children but particularly for those children with special educational needs whose opportunities to learn may vary considerably as a direct or indirect result of their disability or learning difficulty.
In order to achieve appropriate outcomes, some students may require special facilities, access, and resources. Of concern is that some schools may be potentially unwilling to provide the necessary additional support and that minority groups of children may be discriminated against when funding is limited for programs. Specialised programs for students with special educational needs may not be perceived by schools to be cost effective and may, therefore, receive reduced resourcing. If cost is the primary criterion for developing programs in schools, funding may be directed towards the majority of students.
If insufficient resourcing is available in regular schools this will have a large impact on the movement towards inclusive education. There is a probability that regular schools may not be resourced adequately to meet the needs of all students out of their annual budget, particularly small rural schools where funding may be relatively limited compared to larger schools. Without appropriate legislation this poses the question of how equality of resource funding and program access to achieve relevant outcomes can be assured. Will a set proportion of school-based funding be allocated specifically for students with special educational needs and, if so, how will this be determined fairly?
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs 1998, Literacy for all: The challenge for Australian schools (Australian Schooling Monograph Series 1), Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Forlin, P & Forlin, C 1996, 'Legal frameworks for devolution in regular and special education', Australian Journal of Education, vol. 40, pp. 177_189.
Griffin, P & Smith, P 1997, Hindering and facilitating factors in OBE, Australian Curriculum Studies Association, Canberra.
Jayanthi, M, Epstein, MH, Polloway, EA & Bursuck, WD 1996, 'A national survey of general education teachers' perceptions of testing adaptations', The Journal of Special Education, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 99-115.
Kennedy, KJ, Marland, P, Sturman, A & Forlin, C 1996, 'Implementing national curriculum statements and profiles: Corporate federalism in retreat?' Forum of Education, vol. 51, pp. 33-43.
Massanari, CB 1994, 'What is OBE and what does it mean for students with disabilities?' Special Services in Schools, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 79-92.
Newmann, F & Wehlage, GG 1996, 'Organisational capacity: Schools as professional communities: Successful school restructuring', A report to the public and educators by the Centre on Organisation and Restructuring of Schools, Madison, Wisconsin.
Olsen, K 1994, 'Have we made progress in fifteen years of evaluating the effectiveness of special education programs?' Special Services in the Schools, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 21-38.
Queensland School Curriculum Council 1998, 'Queensland Curriculum Council vision for the school curriculum in Queensland', Interlink, vol. 9, p. 7.
Rawls, J 1971, A theory of justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Shriner, JG 1994, 'Broadening educational outcomes beyond academics', Special Services in Schools, vol. 9, pp. 139-154.
Shriner, JG, Ysseldyke, JE, Thurlow, ML & Honetschlager, D 1994, 'All means all: Including students with disabilities', Educational Leadership, pp. 38-42.
Snook, I 1998, 'An international perspective', presentation at the Australian College of Education Queensland Chapter Forum on School Based Management: New Concept? Australian College of Education Queenland Chapter Newsletter, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 6-11.
Sullivan, R 1998, 'Education Queensland's vision of school based management as it relates to the Leading Schools' initiative and other relevant issues, especially those relating to student outcomes', Australian College of Education Queenland Chapter Newsletter, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 12-17.
Thurlow, M 1994, National and state perspectives on performance assessment and students with disabilities, CEC.
Thurlow, ML & Ysseldyke, JE 1994, 'Focussing on educational outcomes: Challenges for special services personnel', Special Services in the Schools, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 167-183.
US Congress 1993, Goals 2000: Educate America Act: Report from the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Washington, DC.
Whiting, P 1996, 'The effects of using a writer in examinations on senior students with and without learning disabilities', Australasian Journal of Special Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 61-69.
Willis, S & Kissane, B 1995, Outcome-based education, Education Department of Western Australia, Perth.
Wylie, C 1997, Self managing schools seven years on: What have we learnt?, Council for Educational Research, Wellington, NZ.
Ysseldyke, JE & Thurlow, ML 1994a, 'Educational outcomes for students with disabilities', Special Services in the Schools, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1-10.
Ysseldyke, JE & Thurlow, ML 1994b, 'What results should be measured to decide whether instruction is working for students with disabilities?' Special Services in the Schools, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 39-50.
|Author details: Dr. Chris Forlin is Associate Professor in Special Education at Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
At the time of writing this article, Dr. Peter Forlin was Senior Lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Qld. He is now Senior Science Master, Mater Dei College, Perth Western Australia.
Please cite as: Forlin, C. and Forlin, P. (2002). Outcomes focussed education for inclusion. Queensland Journal of Educational Research, 18(1), 62-81. http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/qjer/qjer18/forlin.html