State Reports on the Participation and Performance of English Language Learners with Disabilities in 2006-2007

Technical Report 54

Debra Albus • Martha Thurlow • Kristi Liu

May 2009

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2009). State reports on the participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities in 2006-2007 (Technical Report 54). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
Method
Results
     2006-2007 Participation and Performance Review
     2006-2007 Participation
     2006-2007 Performance
     Comparison of Participation and Performance Data Across Years
     2006-2007 Performance Results
     2006-2007 Other Data Reported by States
Discussion
References

Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K

Top of page | Table of Contents

Executive Summary

NCLB legislation focuses attention on high expectations for all students in learning grade level academic content, and requires that disaggregated participation and performance data be reported for students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs). Although not required by law, some states have reported data disaggregated for students with disabilities who are also ELLs. This study summarizes the extent to which states reported these data in 2006-2007, and how the online reporting of participation and performance for these students in 2006-2007 compared to previous years.

Overall, many states still were not reporting on this population on state assessments. From 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, the number of states reporting either participation or performance, or both, on any state assessment increased from 3 to 20 states. More states (N=17) reported these data for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), followed by English language proficiency assessments for Title III accountability (N=7). The number reporting these data for regular state assessments actually decreased (N=1). In 2006-2007, more states reported other types of information for this population, including data on accommodated administration on state assessments, on other language versions of state assessments, and data for an alternate reading assessment in English.

The performance of ELLs with disabilities on AA-AAS compared to the total number of students taking AA-AAS was somewhat surprising given that previous data reports have suggested that ELLs with disabilities tend to have a lower percentage of students scoring proficient than their English proficient peers on regular assessments. The findings suggest that the ELLs with disabilities taking the AA-AAS across several states either (1) receive excellent instruction as a group to have a higher number scoring proficient than all students assessed, (2) have less severe disabilities than their English proficient peers, or (3) have been inappropriately placed in the AA-AAS. Language acquisition issues also could interact with these or other possible explanations. It may be that the AA-AAS has fewer barriers that affect ELLs than do other assessments. The number of students in these data is low, so we also note caution in interpreting the practical significance of the differences in performance.

On English language proficiency assessments, ELLs with disabilities usually had an equal or lower percentage scoring proficient compared to ELLs without disabilities on measures of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. However, in a couple of states, there were data that showed a higher percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient on a portion of a state assessment (e.g., listening and speaking) than the total of all ELLs who took the assessment in a particular grade.

It is important to continue to focus on the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities in order to gauge how well they are doing in the various state assessments and accountability systems of which they are a part. Further, it is important not only to describe whether and how states are reporting on this diverse subpopulation, but ultimately to look at how they are doing on state assessments and to use that information to improve their education.

Top of page | Table of Contents

Introduction

NCLB legislation has focused attention on high expectations for all students in learning grade level academic content, and has required that disaggregated participation and performance data be reported for students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs). Although not required by law, some states have reported data disaggregated further, for students with disabilities who are also ELLs.

Some studies have been conducted using these public data, including reports on the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities on Minnesota’s graduation exams for 1999-2000 (Liu, Barrera, Thurlow, Guven, & Shyyan, 2005) and 2000-2001 (Liu, Thurlow, Barrera, Guven, & Shyyan, 2005). Similar studies looked at their performance on Minnesota’s regular state achievement assessments for 2000-2001 (Albus, Barrera, Thurlow, Guven, & Shyyan, 2004) and 2001-2002 (Albus, Thurlow, Barrera, Guven, & Shyyan, 2004), with a further study using district and state level data (Thurlow & Liu, 2001). Data reported on ELLs with disabilities for 2002-2003 captured a broader picture of the data that were reported publicly for these students and how the students were faring nationwide in terms of academic achievement (Albus & Thurlow, 2005). This study aimed to update the national data by summarizing publicly reported data for ELLs with disabilities for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 assessments.

In the report on 2002-2003 data (Albus & Thurlow, 2005), six states reported online the disaggregated participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities on regular state assessments, including versions in other languages. Three states disaggregated this information for state alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, two states for language proficiency assessments, and one state for alternative state assessments that did not fit into the typical categories of assessments. Participation rates for reporting states were between 97% and 99% for the elementary school level and between 93% and 107% at the middle school level. The 107% rate, according to the state, was due to students enrolled in one grade but tested in another. In high school, rates were 80-91% for 2 states. The performance of ELLs with disabilities, for the few states reporting, showed that across grade levels, the percentages of proficient students fell below their peers of general education students, ELLs without disabilities, and students with disabilities who were proficient in English. The current study was designed to answer the following questions:

1. To what extent are states reporting data publicly on ELLs with disabilities for 2006-2007?

2. How does online reporting of participation and performance for these students in 2006-2007 compare to previous years?

Top of page | Table of Contents

Method

In January 2007, NCEO staff searched state education Web sites for data disaggregated for students with disabilities who were also English language learners for all state administered assessments. Data were collected for both 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years for the 50 regular states. Summaries were developed for whether states reported participation and performance on state assessments and descriptively how a state reported these data (e.g., number tested, number exempted, etc.).

Descriptive summaries of the data we found were then sent to state assessment directors for verification via e-mail correspondence in April 2008. Appendices A and B provide a sample of the e-mailed letter and summary tables sent to states. The last verification response was received in July 2008. Eighteen states responded with verification confirmations about data accuracy.

The initial data were collected from regular state assessment reports posted online in a variety of formats (e.g., PDF, Word, report generators, etc.). However, if a state submitted published reports in the mail, these were included in our data gathering. We did not collect data from reports that states were required to submit to the federal government, such as state performance plans (SPPs) or annual performance reports (APRs) that are required for reporting data on students with disabilities.

The regular assessments described in this report include those used in state NCLB accountability systems. Unless otherwise noted, alternate assessments included in this analysis and represented in figures are limited to alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), which are intended for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. All statewide assessments specifically given to ELLs were gathered and included in the appendices (e.g., English language proficiency assessments, translation of regular state assessments), but the data used in the figures are only those that states used for English language proficiency assessments for Title III accountability purposes. If data were available for other assessments, they are noted in the text (e.g., alternate assessments based on grade level achievement standards, norm referenced achievement test in Spanish, etc.).

English language learners with a disability in this report refers to those students identified as an English language learner (e.g., limited English proficiency) and as requiring special education services or a 504 accommodation plan for a disability. The sections of this report that compare performance within states for English language proficiency (ELP) assessments and AA-AAS use a comparison group of all students taking each assessment. This means that for the ELP assessment, the "All" comparison group includes all ELLs with or without disabilities who took the assessment. For the AA-AAS, the "All" comparison group includes all students with disabilities in the AA-AAS regardless of language proficiency status, unless otherwise noted. Where specific states had unique reporting categories that were not similar across states (e.g., separated data by current ELL and various monitoring categories, or by limited English proficient [LEP] and non English proficient [NEP]), these are clearly noted.

In this report we present data for elementary, middle, and high school by selecting one grade per level. The representative grades we used were 4th grade for elementary, 8th for middle school, and 10th for high school. In instances where data for a grade were not available, we selected data from one grade below. If data for one grade below were not available, we used data from the grade above.

Top of page | Table of Contents

Results

The results in this report focus first on assessment participation and performance for 2006-2007. Then we compare those results to the data from 2005-2006.

2006-2007 Participation and Performance Overview

Figure 1 shows the consistency of reporting of participation and performance data across three types of state assessments administered in NCLB accountability systems in 2006-2007. These assessment types were: regular state assessments, alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), and Title III assessments used for measuring English language proficiency in reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

For 2006-2007, only one state (Minnesota), reported participation and performance data on all three types of assessments for ELLs with disabilities. Three other states (Alaska, California, and Texas) reported participation and performance data for two types of assessments. A larger number of states (N=13) reported data for ELLs with disabilities for at least one type of assessment. Thirty states had no information reported for participation or performance disaggregated by ELLs with disabilities on any state assessments. The information used to create Figure 1 is found in Appendices C, D, and E.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of states reporting either participation or performance data on ELLs with disabilities across the three types of assessments for 2006-2007. Only one state reported data for a regular assessment. Seventeen states reported data for a state AA-AAS, and seven states reported data for a Title III English language proficiency assessment. Of the 17 states that reported on an AA-AAS, 14 reported both participation and performance, 1 reported participation only, and 2 reported performance only. The breakdown of data for 2005-2006 was nearly identical. Appendices C, D and E present the state data that were aggregated to produce Figure 2.

Figure 1. States Reporting 2006-2007 Disaggregated Participation and Performance Data for ELLs with Disabilities Across Regular, AA-AAS, and Title III Assessments in NCLB Accountability Systems *

*The figure does not include state APR or SPP data. A broad definition was used to determine whether a state had data – states were included if they had data in any form for each assessment type; these data could be presented for the state as a whole, by grade ranges, or by grade.

Figure 2. Number of States Reporting Participation or Performance for ELLs with Disabilities for 2006-2007 by Assessment Type

2006-2007 Participation

Regular Assessments

There was only one state that reported participation data for ELLs with disabilities for a regular assessment in the NCLB accountability system in 2006-2007 (see Appendix F). That state, Minnesota, reported participation by number of students tested, number of students not tested, percent of students tested, percent of students not tested, and the number or percent of students exempted or excluded.

Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards

Figure 3 shows the approaches states used in reporting data on ELLs with disabilities on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards for 2006-2007 (see Appendix G). Of those states reporting participation data, most reported by number of students tested (N=12) followed by the number and /or percent of students exempted or excluded (N=6). A couple states reported the percent of students tested and the number or percent of students absent.

Figure 3. Number of States Reporting Participation by Various Approaches for ELLs with Disabilities on AA-AAS in 2006-2007

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Seven states (Alaska, California, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Texas) disaggregated participation data for ELLs with disabilities in 2006-2007 for Title III English language proficiency assessments (see Appendix E). However, one of these states (Alaska), did not disaggregate data by grade so is not represented in Figure 4. Of the six states reporting by grade, all reported the number of students tested, and at least one state (Texas) reported by three other categories related to whether students were not rated, were exempted, or were too few to report (see Figure 4). Students "not rated" were actually reported with further sub categories of either having extenuating circumstances or not rated for other reasons.

Figure 4. Number of States Reporting Participation by Various Approaches for ELLs with Disabilities on English Language Proficiency Assessments in 2006-2007

2006-2007 Performance

Regular Assessments

One state reported performance data for ELLs with disabilities for a regular NCLB accountability assessment for 2006-2007. This state, Minnesota, reported performance using the following approaches: Percent in each achievement level, percent not proficient, number of students in each achievement level, and average scores. Appendix H provides information on performance reported for regular assessments.

Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards

Among the states that reported performance data for ELLs with disabilities on AA-AAS for 2006-2007, most reported the percent of students in each achievement level (N=10) followed by the percent of students not proficient (N=7) and number of students in each achievement level (N=6) (see Figure 5). Another group of states (N=5) reported some other type of score. The fewest number of states reported percent of students proficient on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (N=2). Appendix I provides additional information on performance reporting for AA-AAS.

Figure 5. Number and Percent of States Reporting Performance for ELLs with Disabilities by Various Approaches on AA-AAS in 2006-2007

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Of the six states that reported performance data for ELLs with disabilities on an English Language Proficiency Assessment for 2006-2007, five reported the percent in each achievement level (see Figure 6, and Appendix E). Three states reported the mean scale score, and two or fewer states reported performance data by other categories.

Comparison of Participation and Performance Data Across Years

This section compares disaggregated data for participation and performance that were reported for ELLs with disabilities in 2006-2007(Appendices C, D, and E), to data from 2002-03 (Albus & Thurlow, 2005; and reproduced in Appendix J). First, the level of disaggregation each year is compared across years, taking into account each of the three main types of assessments that states might administer to an ELL with a disability. These include regular assessments, alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, and English language proficiency assessments used for Title III accountability purposes.

Figure 6. Number of States Reporting Performance by Various Approaches for ELLs with Disabilities on English Language Proficiency Assessments in 2006-2007

Figure 7 shows an overview of the level of reporting for participation and performance for the three types of assessments. Compared to 2002-2003, there has been some growth in the number of states reporting disaggregated data, from 6 states to 20. There also was a slight increase in the number of states with more complete reporting practices (e.g., both participation and performance for more assessments rather than participation or performance for fewer types of assessments). For 2006-2007, there was one state that disaggregated data for all three assessment types. These data are reflected in Appendices C, D, E, and J.

Figure 7. Participation and Performance Reported Across Years for Regular States on Three Assessment Types

Key: P or P = Participation or performance, PP = Participation and performance.

The three assessment types are: Regular Assessment, AA-AAS, and English language proficiency assessment for Title III.

Figure 8 shows a comparison across years focusing only on how states reported on regular state assessments. We can see that although the number of states reporting data for ELLs with disabilities overall increased over time, the number of states reporting data on regular assessments has actually gone down, from three states to just one. The one state reporting for 2006-2007 reported both participation and performance, as did the three states for 2002-2003. Appendices C and J present the data used in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Regular State Participation and Performance Disaggregated Across Years for Regular Assessments

Note: "All" means state disaggregated data for all regular assessments.

Looking across years, the number of states disaggregating data for alternate assessments (of any type) increased from just 3 states to 17 (see Figure 9). The total number reporting both participation and performance rose from 3 to 14 states. Across the years, the definition of alternate assessment was clarified, with a focus in the recent years on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Even with the narrowing of the definition shown in the figure, there is still an increase across years. Appendices D and J provide more detailed information across the years summarized in Figure 9.

Data across years for English language proficiency assessments are shown in Figure 10. This assessment type showed a slight increase across years from two to seven states reporting participation and performance. Most states did not disaggregate data for ELLs with disabilities on Title III assessments. Appendices E and J provide more detailed information.

Figure 9. Regular State Participation and Performance Disaggregated Across Years for Alternate Assessments*

*For the year 2002-2003, alternate assessments included assessments that were not necessarily based on alternate achievement standards. For the other two years, data were only for AA-AAS.

Note: Often a state will only have one AA-AAS, but "ALL" in this figure indicates a state disaggregated data for all AA-AAS in a state (e.g., a state may have a separate name for assessment at high school level).

Figure 10. Regular State Participation and Performance Disaggregated Across Years for English Language Proficiency Assessments

2006-2007 Performance Results

Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards

Although there were too few data to chart regular assessment performance data for the 2006-2007 year, there were enough states with disaggregated data for AA-AAS to examine their results. We examined results from the AA-AAS for ELLs with disabilities for elementary (4th grade), middle (9th grade), and high school (10th grade).

In Table 1, which presents elementary data on AA-AAS, most states showed that the percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient was either the same or slightly less than all students assessed on AA-AAS reading. One exception was California, where ELLs with disabilities (N=316) had a slightly higher percent scoring proficient compared to all students with disabilities assessed on the AA-AAS (N=913), (indicated by shading in the table). The California assessment is divided into five levels corresponding to the level of instruction provided to students. Level I covers a range of students enrolled in grades 1-11 and Levels III, IV, and V corresponding more closely to enrolled grade bands. For elementary mathematics, four states showed ELLs with disabilities having slightly to moderately higher percentages of ELLs with disabilities proficient compared to all students with disabilities who participated in AA-MAS. Many of the differences favoring ELLs with disabilities may be non-significant, but the change in direction was interesting.

Table 1. Elementary Reading AA-AAS: Percent Proficient for ELLs Compared to All* Students Assessed

	Reading Percent Proficient and N Assessed				Math Percent Proficient and N Assessed
State	ELLs	n	All	N	ELLs	n	All	N
Alabama	44	--	59	--	50	--	55	--
Alaska	33	12	53	65	80	12	66	65
California Level I	82	316	78	913	49	317	46	912
California Levels III, IV, and V	62	1221	59	3399	72	1219	74	3394
Colorado¹	65	20	79	521	35	20	38	508
Illinois	53	--	66	--	46	--	60	--
Minnesota	56	59	59	803	76	54	60	737
North Carolina	83	36	83	754	81	36	79	754
Nevada	3	58	4	229	5	58	5	229
Texas²	94	5,482	94	24,430	96	4,888	96	22,514

Note: Shading indicates states where ELLs with disabilities had a higher percentage scoring proficient.

*"All" students assessed include non ELLs and ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities who take AA-AAS unless otherwise noted. "ELL" includes all ELLs unless otherwise noted.

-- No participation or no number tested

¹ Colorado "ELL" data includes only limited English proficient (LEP) status, not non-English proficient (NEP) or fluent English proficient status. There were too few students to report publicly in fluent English proficient status. The "All" group for Colorado did not include ELL status students.

² Texas "ELL" data does not include monitoring status categories, only current LEP.

For middle schools (see Table 2), the pattern of performance observed in elementary school continued. For reading, one state reported a slightly higher percentage proficient among ELLs with disabilities compared to all students assessed on the AA-AAS. In mathematics, six states had higher percentages of ELLs with disabilities proficient. The reported differences for percent proficient among ELLs with disabilities compared to all students with disabilities for mathematics ranged from 1% to 12% higher. The noted differences may be non-significant.

Table 2. Middle School Reading AA-AAS: Percent Proficient for ELLs Compared to All* Students Assessed

	Reading Percent Proficient and N Assessed				Math Percent Proficient and N Assessed
State	ELLs	n	All	N	ELLs	n	All	N
Alabama	57	--	64	--	50	--	55	--
Alaska	43	7	44	63	57	7	47	63
California Level I	77	291	78	910	53	291	50	907
California Level III, IV, and V	64	1153	64	3598	54	1151	52	3589
Colorado¹	65	15	78	535	**	**	**	**
Illinois	46	--	63	--	37	--	54	--
Minnesota	81	31	80	818	58	33	46	813
North Carolina	76	25	84	850	80	25	76	850
Nevada	6	48	9	235	8	48	5	235
Texas²	91	5,640	92	27,075	90	3,222	89	28,695

Note: Shading indicates states where ELLs with disabilities had a higher percentage scoring proficient.

*All students assessed include non ELLs and ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities who take AA-AAS.

**Too few to report.

¹Colorado "ELL" data includes only limited English proficient (LEP) status, not non-English proficient (NEP) or fluent English proficient status. There were too few students to report publicly in fluent English proficient status. The "All" group for Colorado did not include ELL status students.

²Texas "ELL" data does not include monitoring status categories, only current LEP.

For high school, seven of the nine states reported performance of ELLs with disabilities that as a group exceeded the percent proficient reported for all students assessed in the AA-AAS. In high school, somewhat different patterns emerged. Equal numbers of states reported higher percentages of ELLs with disabilities proficient compared to all students with disabilities assessed in AA-AAS, reading and mathematics. In five states, the percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient was 2-24% higher than all students assessed in AA-AAS reading. In another five states, the percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient was 1-15% higher in mathematics. Most of these higher differences in percentages occurred where smaller numbers of ELLs with disabilities were assessed, although not in every instance. Again, the differences may be non-significant.

Table 3. High School Reading AA-AAS: Percent Proficient for ELLs Compared to All* Students Assessed

	Reading Percent Proficient and N Assessed				Math Percent Proficient and N Assessed
State	ELLs	n	All	N	ELLs	n	All	N
Alabama	53	--	60	--	53	--	59	--
Alaska	44	9	38	88	56	9	41	88
California Level I	74	246	75	837	51	245	46	833
California Level III, IV and V	61	955	50	3354	56	951	55	3345
Colorado¹	75	16	66	471	**	**	**	**
Illinois	55	--	65	--	63	--	58	--
Minnesota	82	34	80	832	41	29	35	884
North Carolina	80	10	84	850	90	10	77	651
Texas²	83	1,851	85	10,971	85	3,222	86	21,659
West Virginia	100	8	76	216	75	8	75	217

*All students assessed include non ELLs and ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities who take AA-AAS.

**Too few to report.

-- No participation or no number tested

¹Colorado "ELL" data includes only limited English proficient (LEP) status, not non-English proficient (NEP) or fluent English proficient status. There were too few students to report publicly in fluent English proficient status. The "All" group for Colorado did not include ELL status students.

²Texas "ELL" data does not include monitoring status categories, only current LEP.

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Although five states had reported data for English language proficiency assessments, four states reported in such a way that performance could be compared across three school levels. One state reported the total performance across all grades, so was not included here. New York reported by grade bands so the performance levels chosen for the table (grades 2-4, 7-8, 9-12) do not follow the typical representative grade method used throughout the report as described in the method section. Overall, most of the performance data for English language learners with disabilities (shown in Table 4) indicated that the percentage of ELLs without disabilities scoring proficient was equal to or higher than those ELL with disabilities. Two states had one or more instances of the reverse, reporting higher percentages of ELLS with disabilities scoring proficient than all students assessed in combined listening and speaking for middle and high schools, and speaking in high school. These two states had higher numbers of ELLs with disabilities tested, with between 2,300 and 3,500 ELLs with disabilities assessed at middle and high school levels in New York, and about 4,000 assessed in high school in Texas.

Table 4. English Language Proficiency Assessments: Percent Proficient for ELLs With Disabilities Compared to All* Students Assessed

	Percent Proficient								Overall Performance Percent Proficient
State	Reading		Writing		Speaking		Listening		EWD	All
State	EWD**	All	EWD	All	EWD	All	EWD	All	EWD	All
Elementary
California E and A¹									9	30
California Criterion²									8	28
Minnesota	11	35	4	21			52**	70**
New York	38**	60**					85**	87**
Texas	46	78	25	51	48	62	56	71
Middle School
California E and A									22	47
California Criterion									15	41
Minnesota	10	32	12	35			70**	72**
New York	27**	39**					82**	72**
Texas	83	87	43	52	62	62	67	69
High School
California E and A									14	36
California Criterion									11	32
Minnesota	8	23	9	23			56**	59**
New York	36**	42**					64**	53**
Texas	68	78	49	56	65	61	69	69

Note: Shading indicates where ELLs with disabilities scored a higher percentage proficient.

*"All students" refers to all English language learners who took the assessment with or without disabilities.

** EWD refers to ELLs with disabilities.

¹E and A includes any student scores with early advanced or advanced scores, not taking into account criterion performance across domains.

²Criterion includes students with an overall score of early advanced or advanced, with scores at intermediate or above for all domains. Reading, writing, speaking and listening domains only reported by mean scale scores.

** Indicates state reported combined scores, either reading and writing, or listening and speaking performance were reported together.

2006-2007 Other Data Reported by States

Other information gathered for this study included information on accommodated participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities. We also gathered information on the extent to which states posted reports for ELLs with disabilities on their Web sites in other languages. We acknowledge that states and local education agencies provide reports to parents in other languages other than English per NCLB requirements. However, it seemed important to summarize how states are reporting data for these students in other languages in online formats also.

Accommodated Students

A small number of states reported the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities using accommodations on state assessments (see Table 5, and Appendix K). Table 5 displays the terminology used and the level of reporting by states.

Two states reported accommodations data for a Title III English language proficiency assessment. One state reported on an alternate assessment other than an AA-AAS (MI), and one state reported on a regular assessment (TX). Texas also reported accommodated assessment scores for its regular state assessment, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). On this test it reported data for students with disabilities using LAT (linguistically accommodated testing). It also reported data for its Spanish version of the TAKS. Although not every student taking the Spanish version of the TAKS is necessarily an English language learner, we note it here because in the reported data on LAT testing the state included break-out categories for students with disabilities, which would translate to ELLs with disabilities needing accommodations.

Multilingual Reporting.

Information was also collected on whether states posted reports online for ELLs with disabilities in other languages. One state, Illinois, had a data report available online in another language for this group—the language was Spanish. Although it had a Spanish version report for all state assessments administered, it had data for ELLs with disabilities reported for the IMAGE and IAA (Illinois Alternate Assessment). Another state, Colorado, also had an online Spanish report for its regular state assessment, but it did not have clear data for ELLs with disabilities because its assessments may be taken by Spanish speakers who are not necessarily ELLs.

Table 5. 2006-2007 Summary of States that Reported State-Level Information about Accommodations

State¹	Tests	Terminology used	By content/ grade?	Participation	Performance	Comments
Alaska	Alaska English Language Proficiency Assessment	IEP/504 Accommodations	Yes	Yes	Yes
Michigan	ACCESS-Functional Independence	Standard and Nonstandard	Yes	Yes	Yes	All, and ELL only (constituting ELLs with disabilities)
Michigan	ELPA	Standard and Nonstandard	Yes	Yes	Yes	ELLs with and without disabilities
Texas	TAKS	Students tested with bundled dyslexia accommodations	Yes	Yes	Yes	Bundled: Total using, African American, Hispanic and white students, economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and special education students.
Texas	TAKS	LAT (Linguistically Accommodated Testing)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Reports for both English and Spanish versions of TAKS

¹ Wisconsin noted that schools and districts have access to data on whether or not the WKCE was taken with test accommodations in their download files. The scores are not flagged or reported separately for students with disabilities with or without accommodations.

Top of page | Table of Contents

Discussion

It is obvious in looking across years that although there has been an increase in the number of states reporting disaggregated data for ELLs with disabilities, there are still many states that are not reporting data on this population on state assessments. The largest increase was from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, from 3 to 20 states reporting either participation, performance or both. Over time, most of the growth was in states reporting for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. There was an actual decrease in the number of states reporting data on their regular state assessments, from three states to only one in 2006-2007. Slightly more states reported on Title III assessments to measure English language proficiency, increasing from two to seven states.

Compared to 2002-2003, more states were reporting other types of information for this population also. Three states reported data for ELLs with disabilities using accommodations on state assessments. These three reported both participation and performance for at least one state assessment type, whether regular, alternate, or English language proficiency assessment. Within the category of other information reported we included instances where states reported data although they did not fit into the three main assessments. For example, California reported data for students with disabilities taking Aprenda – a Spanish language norm referenced achievement assessment; Colorado reported detailed data for students with disabilities for its Spanish language version of its state test (including data by accommodation); Illinois reported data on the IMAGE which was an alternate reading assessment for ELLs that has since been discontinued (in 2007-2008); and New York reported data for students with disabilities taking its state foreign language assessments. Although the California and Colorado did report data for students with disabilities, it is unclear from the data how many students are both ELL and have a disability because some bilingual students take these assessments.

The performance of ELLs with disabilities on AA-AAS compared to the total number of students taking AA-AAS was somewhat surprising given that previous data reports have suggested that ELLs with disabilities tend to have a lower percentage of students scoring proficient than their English proficient peers on regular assessments. The findings suggest that the ELLs with disabilities taking the AA-AAS across several states either (1) receive excellent instruction as a group to have a higher number scoring proficient than all students assessed, (2) have less severe disabilities than their English proficient peers, or (3) have been inappropriately placed in the AA-AAS. It is possible, further, that language acquisition issues could interact with these or other possible explanations.

It is important to note, too, that even in states where the English proficient students had more students scoring proficient on AA-AAS, ELLs also appeared to have a similar or slightly smaller percentage scoring proficient. These results overall suggest the need to take a closer look at participation policies and their implementation for ELLs with disabilities on these assessments. It may be that these assessments have fewer barriers for ELLs compared to regular assessments, that the barriers that affect ELLs in other assessments are not so evident in AA-AAS, or that the ELLs participating in these states may simply have slightly less severe disabilities than non-ELL peers who are being assessed. One could argue, as in regular assessments, that ELLs with limited English proficiency may struggle more with English language arts content than mathematics. However, this argument would not be supported by the data in the high school grades, where seven states out of nine reported a higher percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient in either reading or mathematics compared to all students assessed.

Other performance data for English language proficiency assessments showed that ELLs with disabilities usually had an equal or lower percentage scoring proficient compared to ELLs without disabilities on measures of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. However, for one state, New York, ELLs with disabilities had a higher percentage scoring proficient in combined speaking and listening scores compared to all ELLs assessed for middle school and high school. Another state, Texas, also had more ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient on a speaking assessment at the high school level. These differences may be due to variations in the level of difficulty in these specific listening and speaking assessments, accommodation policies or their implementation, or the types of disabilities for which the majority of these ELLs were receiving services. It was noted previously that sometimes a state’s speaking and listening accommodations policies for ELLs with disabilities varied considerably from those of other states, such as New York (Albus & Thurlow, 2007). But it is not certain how much, if any, influence the policies may have had in the New York data presented here because there may be other reasons for the performance differences.

Overall, it is important to continue to focus on the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities in order to gauge how well they are doing in the various state assessments and accountability systems of which they are a part. Further, it is important to not only describe whether and how states are reporting on this diverse subpopulation, but to ultimately look at how they are doing on state assessments and to use that information to improve their education.

Top of page | Table of Contents

References

Albus, D., Barrera, M., Thurlow, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2004). 2000-2001 participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (ELLs with Disabilities Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2005). Beyond subgroup reporting: English language learners with disabilities in 2002-2003 online state assessment reports (ELLs with Disabilities Report 10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2007). English language learners with disabilities in state English language proficiency assessments: A review of state accommodation policies (Synthesis Report 66). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., Barrera, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2004). 1999-2000 Participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (ELLs with Disabilties Report 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Liu, K., Barrera, M., Thurlow, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (1999-2000) of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Liu, K., Thurlow, M., Barrera, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (2000-2001) of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2001). State and district assessments as an avenue to equity and excellence for English language learners with disabilities (LEP Projects Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National center on educational Outcomes.

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix A

Sample Letter Sent to State Assessment Directors

Staff at the National Center on Educational Outcome collected data for English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities on your state’s Web site for the 05-06 and 06-07 School years. We request your help in verifying the information in the attached tables.

NOTE-This is different and separate from the previous NCEO request for verifying data for students with disabilities in online reports that was mailed out.

The attached tables include these data for ELLs with disabilities:

Any state tests that report data for these students

How participation and performance were reported

Accommodated administration information

Provision of reports in other languages online

If your state has posted data not reflected in these tables, please indicate that in your response with specific Web address(es) to regular state reports.

Please verify the information by email or phone (612) 626-0323. If you would rather fax a reply to our request, you may do so at (612) 624-0879. Also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We hope to hear from you by May 30th, 2008.

Thank you for taking the time to verify this information.

Sincerely,

Deb Albus
Research Fellow

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix B

Example of Verification Tables Sent to State Assessment Directors

Alabama, 2005-06 and 2006-07

Table 1: Results for ELLS with Disabilities Found on Your State’s Regular Report(s)

Please review this table for its accuracy, make any changes (if necessary), and fill in any blank fields.

Test	Grades Tested	Subject Areas	In Accountability System? Yes/No	Is Disaggregated Info for ELLs with Disabilities Reported? (Yes/No)
				2005-2006		2006-2007
				Partic.	Perform.	Partic.	Perform.
Alabama Alternate AAS*	1 - 12	Reading, Math	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

*AAS=based on alternate achievement standards; GLAS=based on grade level achievement standards; MAS= based on Modified achievement standards

Table 2: Participation Information for English language learners with Disabilities

Please review this table. A "Y" indicates we found data reported this way in your state’s regular report(s). Please add a "Y" if your state are uses additional categories in your regular report(s), and please provide us with the information (either a hard copy or a Web-link). A regular report is a public report summarizing data for students with disabilities in a manner equivalent to that used for state data reporting for students without disabilities or for all students.

Note: "Y" marks indicate categories the state uses descriptively (e.g., we do not add percentages of students across achievement levels to get total percent proficient for this table).

Test	Data reported by grade and individual test
Test	Percent of Students by Assessment (e.g.,4% in alternate on AAS)	Number of Students Tested	Number of Students Not Tested	Percent of Students (participation rate e.g., 98% gr. 4)	Percent of Students Not Tested	Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded	Number and/or Percent Absent
Alternate	Y (% tested and % in group) Same for both years	N	N	N	N	N	N

Table 3: Performance Information for English language learners with Disabilities

Please review this table. A "Y" indicates we found data reported this way in your state’s regular report(s). Please add a "Y" if your state uses additional categories in your regular report(s), and please provide us with the information (either a hard copy or a Web-link). A regular report is a public report summarizing data for students with disabilities in a manner equivalent to that used for state data reporting for students without disabilities or for all students.

Note: "Y" marks indicate categories the state uses descriptively (e.g., we do not add percentages of students across achievement levels to get total percent proficient for this table).

Test	Data reported by grade and individual test
Test	Percent in Each Achievement Level	Number in Each Achievement Level	Percent in Each PR* Group	Percent Proficient	Percent Not Proficient	Number Proficient	Number Not Proficient	Average Percentile Rank
Alternate	Y Same way both years	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

*=Percentile Rank

Table 4: Accommodations

We are interested in examining if and how states report information about students who take assessments using accommodations. Please change our responses (if necessary) to reflect information that is reported for your state. If you do make changes, please provide us with the information (either a hard-copy or a Web-link).

Tests Reporting Data on Accommodations	Accommodation Categories	Is Disaggregated Info for Students Using Accommodations Reported? (Yes/No)		For Whom?
		Participation	Performance
None

Table 5. Reporting in other languages

Test	Reports presented in other languages online
Test	Y/N	If Yes, What language(s)?
None

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix C

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for ELLs with Disabilities on Regular State Tests in the Fifty States and Unique States Across 2005-06 and 2006-07

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate there is a state note at left

State	Assessment Component	Grades	Subject	Disaggregated Data				Test Used for State Accountability Purposes
				2005-06		2006-07
				Part.	Perf.	Part.	Perf.
Alabama	Direct Assessment of Writing (DAW) [CRT]	5,7,10	Writing	No	No	No	No	No
	Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) [EXIT]	11,12	Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Stanford Achievement Test, 10th ed. (SAT-10) [NRT]	3-8	Reading, Language, Math (3-8), Science (5,7), Social Studies (6)	No	No	No	No	No
	Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Alaska	Standards Based Assessment (SBA) [CRT]	3-10	Reading, Math, Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
	High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) [EXIT]	10-12	Reading, Math, Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
	TerraNova/CAT-6 [NRT]	5, 7	Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, Spelling	No	No	No	No	No
Arizona	TerraNova [NRT]	2-9	Reading/Language Arts, Math	No	No	No	No	No
	Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) [CRT/NRT]	3-8	Reading, Math, Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
	AIMS High School (AIMS HS) [EXIT]	10 -12	Reading, Math, Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
Arkansas	Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) [NRT]	K-9	Reading, Language, Math	No	No	No	No	No
	Arkansas Benchmark Exams [CRT]	3-8	Literacy(Reading), Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
	End of Course (EOC part of ABE) [CRT]	HS	EOC-Algebra I, EOC-Geometry, Literacy	No	No	No	No	Yes
California	California Standards Tests (CSTs) [CRT]	2-11	English Language Arts (2-11), Math (2-8), Science (5,8,10), Math End-of-Course (8-11), History-Social Science (8,10,11), Science End-of-Course (9-11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
California	California Achievement Test, 6th ed. (CAT-6) [NRT]	3,7	Reading, Language, Math, Spelling	No	No	No	No	No
Colorado	Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) [CRT]	3-10	Reading, Math, Writing (3-10); Spanish Reading, Spanish Writing (3,4); Science (5,8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Connecticut	Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math, Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
Connecticut	Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) [CRT]	10	Reading, Math, Writing, Science	No	No	No	No	Yes
Delaware	Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP) [NRT/CRT]	2-11	Reading, Math (2-10), Writing (3-10), Science, Social Studies (4,6,8,11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Florida	Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), includes SAT-9 [NRT/CRT]	3-11	Reading (3-10), Math (3-10), Writing (4,8,10), Science (5,8,11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Florida	FCAT NRT (SAT 10)	3-10	Reading (3-10) Math (3-10)	No	No	No	No	No
Georgia	End of Course Tests (EOCT) [CRT]	9-12	English Literature and Composition (9), American Literature and Composition, Algebra, Geometry, Biology, Physical Science, US History, Economics/Business/Free Enterprise	No	No	No	No	No
	Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) [EXIT]	11	English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) [CRT]	1-8	Reading, English/Language Arts, Math, Science (3-8), Social Studies (3-8)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Eighth Grade Writing Assessment [CRT]	8	Writing	No	No	No	No	No
Hawaii	Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) [CRT]	3-8,10	Reading, Math, Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
Idaho	Idaho Direct Assessments (DMA/DWA) [CRT]	4-9	Math (4,6,8), Writing (5,7,9)	No	No	No	No	No
	Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT) [CRT]	3-8, 10	Reading, Language Usage, Math, Science (5,7,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) [CRT]	K-3	Reading	No	No	No	No	No
Illinois	Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) [CRT] *7^th grade science not reported	3,4,5,7,8	Reading (3,5,8), Math (3,5,8), Science (4,7)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Illinois	Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE) [CRT]	11	Reading, Math, Science	No	No	No	No	Yes
Indiana	Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP+) [NRT/CRT]	3-10	English Language Arts, Math, (3-10), Science (5,7)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Graduation Qualifying Exam (GQE) [EXIT]	10	English Language Arts, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Core 40 End-of-Course Assessments (ECAs) [EXIT]	Varies	English 11, Algebra 1	No	No	No	No	No
Iowa	Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]	3-8, 11	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Kansas	Kansas Assessment System (KAS) [CRT] *Combines all tests	3-8, 10, 11	Reading (3-8,11), Math (3-8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Kentucky	Explore (8^th) [NRT] and Plan (10^th)[NRT]	6, 9	Reading, Language, Math	No	No	No	No	No
Kentucky	Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT)[CRT]	3 – 8, 10-12	Reading (3-8,10), Math (3-8,11), Writing Portfolio and On-Demand (5,8,12), Science (4,7,11), Social Studies (5,8,11), Arts & Humanities (5,8,11), Practical Living & Vocational Studies (4,7, 10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Louisiana	Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21) [CRT]	4,8	English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
	iLEAP [CRT/NRT]	3, 5-7, 9	English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Graduation Exit Exam (GEE 21) [EXIT]	10, 11	English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
Maine	Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math (3-8); Science (4, 8)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Maine	Maine High School Assessment (MHSA), which consists of two components: the SAT (NRT) and an augmented mathematics component (CRT)	HS	Reading, Math, and Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
Maryland	Maryland School Assessment (MSA) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Maryland	High School Assessment (HSA) [CRT]	9-12	English 2, Geometry, Biology, Government, Algebra (had for English 2 and Algebra but not other three subjects)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Massachusetts	Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) [CRT]	3-8,10	Reading (3, 5-6, 8), English Language Arts (4,7,10), Math (3-8,10), Science (5,8, 9/10) [had for sci &tech and engineering tests)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Michigan	Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) [CRT]	3-9	Reading, Math, English Language Arts, Writing (3-8); Science (5,8), Social Studies (6,9)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Minnesota	Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA II) [CRT]	3-8, 11	Reading (3-8,10), Math (3-8, 11)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
	BST state grad phasing out [Exit]	10	Writing	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
	GRAD [Exit]	HS	Reading, Writing, Math	No	No	Yes	Yes	No
Mississippi	Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) [CRT]	2-8	Reading, Language, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Writing Assessment (WA) [CRT]	4,7	Writing	No	No	No	No	No
	Subject Area Testing Program (SATP) [CRT]	H S	Algebra I, US History, Biology, English II	No	No	No	No	Yes
Missouri	Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) (TerraNova survey) [NRT/CRT]	3-8,10, 11	Communication Arts (3-8, 11), Math (3-8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Montana	Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]	4,8,11	Reading, Math, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	No
Montana	Montana CRT [CRT]	3-8,10	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Nebraska	Nebraska Statewide Writing Assessment (NSWA) [CRT]	4,8,11	Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
Nebraska	School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) [CRT]	4,8,11	Math, Reading	No	No	No	No	Yes
Nevada	Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]	4,7,10	Reading, Math, Science, Language	No	No	No	No	No
	Nevada Criterion Referenced Test (NCRT) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math (3-8); Science (5,8)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) [EXIT]	10-11	Reading, Math (10-11); Writing (11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Nevada Analytic Writing Examination (NAWE) [CRT]	5, 8	Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
New Hampshire	New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math (3-8); Writing (5,8)	No	No	No	No	Yes
New Jersey	New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ-ASK) [CRT]	3-7	Language Arts Literacy, Math (3-7); Science (4)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) [CRT]	8	Language Arts Literacy, Math, Science	No	No	No	No	Yes
	High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) [EXIT]	11	Language Arts Literacy, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
New Mexico	New Mexico Standards Based Assessment (NMSBA) [CRT]	3-9, 11	Reading/Writing, Math, Science	No	No	No	No	Yes
New Mexico	New Mexico High School Competency Exam (NMHSCE) [EXIT]	10-12+	Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, High School competency, Social Studies, Writing	No	No	No	No	No
New York	Regents Comprehensive Exams (RCE) [EXIT]	9-12	English, Foreign Languages, Math, Global History & Geography, US History & Government, Living Environment, Earth Science, Chemistry, Physics	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Regents Competency Test (RCT) [EXIT]	9-12	Reading, Math, Science, Writing, Global Studies, US Hist & Gov’t	No	No	No	No	Yes
	New York State Assessment Program (NYSAP) [CRT]	3-8	English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
North Carolina	End-of-Grade (EOG) [CRT] *No Science, pilot year	3-8, 10 5 and 8	Reading, Math Science (5 and 8)	No	No	No*	No*	Yes
	End-of-Course (EOC) [CRT]	HS	Biology, Chemistry, Physics, English I, Physical Science, Algebra I & II, Geometry, Civics & Economics	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Computer Skills Test (Includes alternate version) [EXIT]	8-12	Computer Skills (test version matches curriculum for year) [Exit]	No	No	No	No	No
North Dakota	North Dakota State Assessment (NDSA) [NRT/CRT]	3-8, 11	Reading/Language, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Ohio	Ohio Achievement Tests (OAT) [CRT] *combined with alternate	3-8	Reading, Math (3-8); Writing (4)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Ohio	Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) [EXIT] *combined with alternate	10, 11	Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
Oklahoma	Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math (3-8), Science (5,8); Social Studies (5), History/Government (8), Geography (7)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Oklahoma	End-of-Instruction Tests (EOI) [CRT]	HS	English II, U.S. History, Algebra I, Biology I	No	No	No	No	Yes
Oregon	Oregon Statewide Assessment (OSA) [CRT]	3-8,10	Reading/Literature, Math (3-8,10), Writing (4,7,10), Science (5,8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) [CRT]	3-8,11	Reading, Math (3-8, 11); Writing (5, 8, 11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Rhode Island	New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)[CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math (3-8); Writing (5,8)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	NSRE [CRT]	HS	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) *Grade 2 used for grade 3 NECAP for some schools in reporting. [CRT]	1-2	Reading	No	No	No	No	No*
South Carolina	Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) [CRT]	3-8	English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
South Carolina	High School Assessment Program (HSAP) [EXIT]	10	English/Language Arts, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
South Dakota	Dakota STEP Test (STEP) [NRT/CRT]	3-8, 11 5, 8-11	Reading, Math Science	No	No	No	No	Yes
South Dakota	Stanford Writing Assessment [CRT]	5,7,10	Writing	No	No	No	No	No
Tennessee	Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test (TCAP-AT) [CRT]	3-8	Reading/Language Arts, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Tennessee	TCAP Gateways (TCAP-SA) [CRT]	9-12	Algebra I, Biology, English I & II, Math Foundations, Physical Science, US HIstory	No	No	No	No	Yes
Texas	Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) [CRT] *Reports data for TAKS-LAT accommodated students.	3-11	Reading (3-9), Math, English Language Arts (10,11), Writing (4,7), Science (5,10,11), Social Studies (8,10,11); Spanish version administered in grades 3-6	No*	No*	No*	No*	Yes
Texas	End of Course Assessment [EXIT]	HS	Algebra I	No	No	No	No	No
Utah	Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]	3,5,8,11	Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	No
	Core Criterion-Referenced Tests (CCRT) [CRT]	1-11	Language Arts, Math (1-11), Science (4-11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Direct Writing Assessment (DWA) [NRT]	6,9	Writing	No	No	No	No	No
	Reading on Grade Level (ROGL)[CRT]	1-11	Reading	No	No	No	No	No
	Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (UBSCT) [EXIT]	HS	Reading, Writing, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Vermont	New Standards Reference Exam (NSRE) [CRT]	10	English/ Language Arts, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
	Vermont Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) [CRT]	2	Reading	No	No	No	No	No
	New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) [CRT]	3-8	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Virginia	Standards of Learning (SOL) [CRT]	3-8, High School	English Language Arts, Math (3-8, HS); History/Social Science, Science (3, 5, 8, HS) Content Specific History (HS)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Washington	Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) [CRT]	3-8, 10	Reading, Math (3-8, 10); Writing (4,7,10); Science (5,8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
West Virginia	West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST) [CRT]	3-8, 10	Reading/Language, Math, Science (3-8,10); Social Studies (3-8)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) [CRT]	3-8,10	Reading, Math (3-8, 10); Language Arts, Science, Social Studies (4,8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Wyoming	Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students (PAWS) [CRT]	3-8,11	Reading, Writing, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix D

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for ELLs with Disabilities on Alternate State Assessments in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2005-06 and 2006-07

AAS is alternate achievement standards and GLAS is grade level achievement standards

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate there is a state note at left

State	Assessment Component	Standards- Based	Grades	Subject	Disaggregated Data				Test Used for State Accountability Purposes
					2005-06		2006-07
					Part.	Perf.	Part.	Perf.
Alabama	Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA)	AAS	1-12	Reading, Math	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Alaska	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-10	English/Language Arts, Math, Skills for a Healthy Life	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Arizona	AIMS-Alternate (AIMS-A)	AAS	3-8	Reading, Math, Writing, Listening, Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes
Arizona	AIMS-A HS	AAS	10 11,12	Reading, Math, Writing, Listening (Level 1), Speaking (Level 1)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Arkansas	Alternate Portfolio Assessment System (APAS)	AAS	3-8,11	Literacy (3-8,11), Math (3-8), EOC-Algebra 1 HS), EOC-Geometry (HS)	No	No	No	No	Yes
California	California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)	AAS	2-11	English Language Arts (2-11), Math (2-11)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Colorado	Colorado Student Assessment Program Alternate (CSAPA)	AAS	3-10	Reading, Math (3-10), Writing, Science (5,8)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Connecticut	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-8,10	Reading, Math, Writing (communication)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Delaware	Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment (DAPA)	AAS	2-10	Reading, Math, Writing (2-10), Science (4,6), Social Studies (4,6,8,11)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Florida	Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR)	AAS	3-10	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Georgia	Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA)	AAS	K-11	English Language Arts and mathematics (K-2), English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies (Gr. 3-8 and 11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Hawaii	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-8,10	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Idaho	Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA)	AAS	K-3	Reading	No	No	No	No	Yes
Illinois	Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA)	AAS	3,4,5,7,8, 11	Reading (3,5,8,11), Math (3,5,8,11), Science (4,7,11)	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Indiana	Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR)	AAS	3-10	English Language Arts, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Iowa	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-8,11	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Kansas	Alternate Assessment: KAMM	MAS	3-8,10,11	Reading (3-8,11) Math (3-8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Kansas	Portfolio Assessment *Reported combined with other tests	AAS	3-8,10,11	Reading (3-8,11) Math (3-8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Kentucky	Alternate Portfolio Assessment *Alternate includes NCLB required components, but includes Attainment Tasks and Transition Attainment Records at Grades 3-8, 10-12	AAS	3-8, 10-12	Reading (3-8,10), Math (3-8,11), Writing Portfolio and On-Demand (5,8,12), Science (4,7,11), Social Studies (5,8,11), Arts & Humanities (5,8,11), Practical Living & Vocational Studies (4,7, 10) *	No	No	No	No	Yes
Louisiana	Alternate Assessment Levels 1 (LAA-1)	AAS	3-12	English Language Arts, Math, Social Studies, Science	No	No	No	No	Yes
Louisiana	Alternate Assessment Level 2 (LAA-2)	GLAS	4, 8, 10, 11	English Language Arts, Math (4, 8, 10); Social Studies, Science (11)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Maine	Personalized Alternate Assessment Portfolios (PAAP)	AAS	4,8,11	English Language Arts (Reading & Writing), Math (4,8,11); Science & Technology (4, 8)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Maryland	Alternate Maryland School Assessment (ALT-MSA)	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Massachusetts	MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt)	AAS	3-10	Reading (3, 5, 6, 8), English Language Arts (4,7,10), Math (3-8,10), Science (5,8,9/10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Michigan	Functional Independence ACCESS alternate Unclear type of standards, AAS or MAS.	AAS	3-8	English/language arts and Mathematics	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Minnesota	Alternate Assessment *(05-06 only)	GLAS	3-8, 11	Reading, Math	No	No	No*	No*	Yes*
Minnesota	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	AAS	3-8, 10, 11	Reading, Math	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Mississippi	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-8	Math, Reading/ Language Arts	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Missouri	MAP-Alternate	AAS	4,8,11	Communication Arts (11), Math (4,8),	No	No	No	No	Yes
Montana	Alternate Assessment NRT	AAS	4,8,11	Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	No
Montana	Alternate Assessment CRT	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Nebraska	Alternate Assessment	AAS	4,8,12	Math, Reading/Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes
Nevada	Nevada Alternate Scales of Academic Achievement (NASAA)	AAS	3-8	Language, Math	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
New Hampshire	Alternate Assessment (NH-Alt)	AAS	10	Reading, Writing, Math	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
New Jersey	Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA)	AAS	3,4,8,11	Language Arts Literacy, Math (3,4,8,11,12); Science (4,8,11)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
New Mexico	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-12	Reading/Writing, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
New York	New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSSA)	AAS	3-8, 12	English Language Arts, Math (3-8,11), Science (4, 8), Social Studies (12)	No	No	No	No	Yes
North Carolina	North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Grade	GLAS	3-8, 10	Reading, Math, Writing (4, 7, 10 only)	No	No	No	No	Yes
	North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Course . Computer Alternate reported with regular test.	GLAS	9-12	Biology, Chemistry, Physics, English I, Physical Science, Algebra I & II, Geometry, US History, Civics & Economics	No	No	No	No	Yes
	NC EXTEND1	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading, Math, Writing (4, 7, 10)	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
	NC EXTEND 2 **Science in prepilot or pilot status	MAS/font>	3 – 8 4,7	Reading, Math, Writing (4,7), Science (5,8,HS)	No	No	Yes*	Yes*	Yes
North Dakota	North Dakota Alternate Assessment (NDALT)	AAS	3-8,11	Reading/Language, Math	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Ohio	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading (3-6,8,10), Math (3,4,6-8,10), Writing (4,10), Science (10), Social Studies (10	No	No	No	No	Yes
Oklahoma	Alternate Assessment (OAAP)	AAS	3-8	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Oklahoma	OMAAP	MAS	3-8	RReading, Math, Writing for Engl II only	No/font>	No	No	No	Yes
Oregon	Extended Assessments (EA)	AAS	3- 8, 10	Reading/Literature (3,5,8,10), Writing (4,7,10), Math (3,5,8,10), Science (5,8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Oregon	Career and Life Role Assessment System (CLRAS)	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading/Literature, Math (3-8,10); Science (5,8,10); Writing (4,7,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment (PASA)	AAS	3-8, 11	Reading, Math	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rhode Island	Alternate Assessment	AAS	3-8,11	English/Language Arts, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
South Carolina	SC-ALT	AAS	3-8, 10	English, Math, Science, Social Studies, and functional and life skills.	No	No	No	No	Yes
South Dakota	Dakota STEP-A	AAS	3-8, 11	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes
Tennessee	TCAP-Alt	AAS	3-12	Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies	No	No	No	No	Yes
Texas	State-Developed Alternate Assessment-II (SDAA-II)	AAS	3-11	Reading, Math	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Utah	Alternate Assessment	AAS	1-12	Language Arts, Math (1-12); Science (4-9)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Vermont	Alternate Assessment	AAS		Varies by type of assessment	No	No	No	No	Yes
Virginia	Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) *Unclear if the alternate data reported is VGLA, VSEP or VAAP.	AAS	3, 5, 8, 11	Collection of Evidence	No	No*	No	No*	Yes
Virginia	Virginia Grade Level Alternative Assessment (VGLA)	GLAS	3, 5, 8, 11	English Language Arts, Math, Science, History/Social Science, Content Specific History (High School)	No	No*	No	No*	Yes
Washington	Washington Alternate Assessment System (WAAS)	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading, Math (3-8, 10); Writing (4,7,10); Science (5,8,10)	No	No	No	No	Yes
Washington	WASL Basic	Other	3-8, 10-12	One or more subject areas	No	No	No	No	No
West Virginia	Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA)	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading, Math	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) Combined with WCKE. *Both alternates reported 05-06, Alternate for students with disabilities in 06-07.	AAS	3-8, 10	Reading, Math (3-8, 10); Science, Social Studies, Language Arts (4,8,10)	No*	Yes*	No*	Yes*	Yes
Wyoming	Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students, Alternate (PAWS-ALT)	AAS	3-8,11	Reading, Math, Writing	No	No	No	No	Yes

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix E

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for ELLs with Disabilities on State Assessments Administered to ELLs or in Another Language in the Fifty States and Unique States Across 2005-06 and 2006-07

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate there is a state note at left.

State	Assessment Component	Grades	Subject	Disaggregated Data				Test Used for Title III, NCLB by type of test
				2005-06		2006-07
				Part.	Perf.	Part.	Perf.
Alabama	Access for ELLs		Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Alaska	Alaska English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELP) *Not by grade	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening	Yes*	Yes*	Yes*	Yes*	Yes, ELP
Arizona	Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Arkansas	English Language Development Assessment (ELDA)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
California	Aprenda (designated primary language test)	2-11	Reading, math, language, spelling	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, Spanish
California	California English Language Development Test (CELDT)	K-12	Reading, writing, speaking, listening	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELP
Colorado	Colorado English Language Assessment (CELA)	K-12	Reading, writing, speaking, listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Connecticut	LAS Links	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Delaware	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Florida	Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Georgia	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Hawaii	Hawaiian Aligned Portfolio Assessment (HAPA) For Hawaiian Language Immersion Program	3-4	Reading, Math	No	No	No	No	Yes, Hawaiian
Hawaii	LAS Links	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Idaho	Idaho English Language Assessment (IELA)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Illinois	IMAGE (GLAS*)	3-8, 11	Reading, Mathematics	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes, ELL alternate for reading
Illinois	Access for ELLs		Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Indiana	LAS Links	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Iowa	Iowa-English Language Development Assessment (I-ELDA)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Kansas	Kansas English Language Proficiency Assessment (KELPA)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Kentucky	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Louisiana	ELDA	3-12	Reading, writing, listening, speaking	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELP
Maine	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Maryland	LAS Links	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Massachusetts	Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Michigan	ELPA (English language proficiency Assessment)	K-12	Listening, Reading, Writing, Speaking (and has comprehension scores and overall)	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELP
Minnesota	TEAE	K-12	Reading, Writing	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELP
	SOLOM	K-12	Listening, Speaking	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELP
	MTELL (GLAS)	3-8, 11	Math	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELL alternate for mathematics
Mississippi	Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (ACCESS for ELLs in 08-09)	3-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Missouri	MAC II (08-09 using LAS Links)	3-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Montana	MontCAS ELPA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Nebraska	ELDA (no test name for prior year seen)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Nevada	ELPA	3-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
New Hampshire	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
New Jersey	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
New Mexico	NMELPA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
New York	NYSESLAT Notes on other tests in text	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes , ELP
North Carolina	IDEA English language Proficiency Tests (IPT)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
North Dakota	ND ELPA to Access for ELLs (06-07 year)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Ohio	ELDA through 06-07. Now OTELA based on ELDA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Oklahoma	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Oregon	ELPA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Pennsylvania	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Rhode Island	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
South Carolina	ELDA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
South Dakota	Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (DELP) through 06-07.	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Tennessee	ELDA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Texas	RPTE through spring ’07	3-12	Reading	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELP
Texas	TOP through spring ‘07	K-12	speaking, listening, writing	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, ELP
Utah	UALPA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Vermont	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Virginia	Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (SELP)	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Washington	WLPT-II	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
West Virginia	WESTELL	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Wisconsin	Access for ELLs	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP
Wyoming	WELLA	K-12	Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening	No	No	No	No	Yes, ELP

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix F

Disaggregated Participation Information for ELLs with Disabilities on Regular State Assessments for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-07

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates that the state wanted to note that the information could be derived, and (**) indicates some other additional state note at left under "Test"

State	Test	Percent of Students by test (e.g.,4% in Alternate)	Number of Students Tested	Number of Students Not Tested	Percent of Students Tested	Percent of Students Not Tested	Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded	Number and/or Percent Absent
AL	DAW	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	AHSGE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	SAT-10	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ARMT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AK	SBA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	HSGQE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	TerraNova	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AZ	TerraNova	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	AIMS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	AIMS HS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AR	ITBS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ABE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	EOC	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CA	CSTs	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CA	CAT-6	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CO	CSAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CT	CMT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CT	CAPT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
DE	DSTP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
FL	FCAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
FL	FCAT NRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
GA	EOCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	GHSGT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	CRCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	EGWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
HI	HSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ID	DMA/DWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ISAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	IRI	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IL	ISAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IL	PSAE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IN	ISTEP+	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ECA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	GQE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IA	ITBS/ITED **Also reports enrolled	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KS	KAS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KY	Plan (10th ) (Explore test to be added 07-08)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KY	KCCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
LA	GEE 21	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	LEAP 21 *8^th grade only	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	iLEAP *4-7	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ME	MEA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ME	MHSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MD	MSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MD	HSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MA	MCAS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MI	MEAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MN	MCAs	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N
	BST	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
	GRAD	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
MS	MCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	Writing	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	SATP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MO	MAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MT	ITBS/ITED	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MT	Montana CRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NE	NSWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NE	STARS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NV	ITBS/ITED	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NCRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	HSPE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NAWE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NH	NECAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NJ	NJ-ASK	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	GEPA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	HSPA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NM	NMSBA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NM	NMHSCE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NY	RCE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	RCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NYSAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NC	EOG	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	EOC	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	Computer Skills	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ND	NDSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OH	OAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OH	OGT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OK	OCCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OK	EOI	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OR	OSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
PA	PSSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
RI	NECAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NSRE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	DRA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SC	PACT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SC	HSAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SD	STEP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SD	Stanford Writing	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TN	TCAP-AT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TN	TCAP-Gateways	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TX	TAKS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TX	EoC Algebra I	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
UT	ITBS/ITED	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	CCRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	DWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	UBSCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ROGL	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
VT	NSRE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	DRA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NECAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
VA	SOL	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WA	WASL	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WV	WESTEST	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WI	WKCE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WY	PAWS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix G

Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Participation Information for ELLs with Disabilities on Regular State Assessments for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-07

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate there is a state note at left

State	Test	Percent of Students by test (e.g.,4% in Alternate)	Number of Students Tested	Number of Students Not Tested	Percent of Students Tested	Percent of Students Not Tested	Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded	Number and/or Percent Absent
Alabama	Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA) *Has % tested and % in group	Y*	N	N	N	N	N	N
Alaska	Alternate Assessment (AAS) *with enrolled	N	N	N	Y*	N	N	N
Arizona	AIMS-Alternate (AAS) (AIMS-A)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Arizona	AIMS-A HS (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Arkansas	Alternate Portfolio Assessment System (APAS) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
California	California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) (AAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
Colorado	Colorado Student Assessment Program Alternate (CSAPA) (AAS) * Percent no scores.	N	Y	N	N	N	Y*	N
Connecticut	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Delaware	Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment (DAPA) (AAS) *with enrolled	N	Y*	N	N	N	Y	N
Florida	Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Georgia	Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Hawaii	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Idaho	Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA) (AAS) *K-3^rd grade	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Illinois	Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Indiana	Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Iowa	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Kansas	Alternate Assessment: KAMM and Portfolio Assessment (MAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Kansas	Portfolio Assmt. (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Kentucky	Alternate Portfolio Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Louisiana	Alternate Assessment Levels 1 (LAA-1) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Louisiana	Alternate Assessment Level 2 (LAA-2) (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Maine	Personalized Alternate Assessment Portfolios (PAAP) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Maryland	Alternate Maryland School Assessment (ALT-MSA) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Massachusetts	MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt) (AAS) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Michigan	Alternate Assessment (MI-Access) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Minnesota	MTAS Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
Mississippi	MAAECF (AAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
Missouri	MAP Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Montana	Alternate Assessment NRT (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Montana	Alternate Assessment CRT (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Nebraska	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Nevada	Nevada Alternate Scales of Academic Achievement (NASAA)(AAS) *with enrolled	N	Y*	N	Y	N	Y	Y
New Hampshire	Alternate Assessment (NH-Alt) (AAS) *with enrolled	Y	Y*	Y	N	N	Y	Y
New Jersey	Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA) (AAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	N
New Mexico	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
New York	New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSSA) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
North Carolina	North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Grade (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Course (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NC EXTEND1 (AAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
	NC EXTEND2 (MAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
North Dakota	North Dakota Alternate Assessment (NDALT) *reported as not tested for regular assessment (AAS)	N	Y*	N	N	N	N	N
Ohio	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Oklahoma	Alternate Assessment (OAAP) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Oklahoma	Modified (OMAAP) (MAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Oregon	Extended Assessments (EA) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Oregon	Career and Life Role Assessment System (CLRAS) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Pennsylvania	Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment (PASA) (AAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N
Rhode Island	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
South Carolina	SC-ALT NEW TEST (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
South Dakota	Dakota STEP-A (AAS) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Tennessee	TCAP-Alt (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Texas	State-Developed Alternate Assessment-II (SDAA-II) (AAS)	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	N
Utah	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Vermont	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Virginia	Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Virginia	Virginia Grade Level Alternative Assessment (VGLA) (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Washington	Washington Alternate Assessment System (WAAS) Portfolio (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Washington	WASL Basic (Other)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
West Virginia	Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA) (AAS)* Low N so not reported	N*	Y	N	N	N	N	N
Wisconsin	Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Wyoming	Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students, Alternate (PAWS-ALT) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix H

Disaggregated Regular Assessment Performance Information for ELLs with Disabilities for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-07

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate there is a state note at left

State	Test	Percent in Each Achievement Level	*Percent in Each PR Group**	Percent Proficient	Percent Not Proficient	Number in Each Achievement Level	Number Proficient	Number Not Proficient	Average Percentile Rank
AL	DAW	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	AHSGE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	SAT-10	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ARMT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AK	SBA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	HSGQE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	TerraNova	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AZ	TerraNova (none)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	AIMS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	AIMS HS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AR	ITBS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ABE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	EoC ABE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CA	CSTs	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CA	CAT-6	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CO	CSAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CT	CMT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CT	CAPT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
DE	DSTP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
FL	FCAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
FL	FCAT NRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
GA	EOCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	GHSGT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	CRCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	EGWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
HI	HSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ID	DMA/DWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ISAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	IRI	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IL	ISAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IL	PSAE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IN	ISTEP+	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IN	GQE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	Core 40 ECAs
IA	ITBS/ITED	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KS	KAS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KY	Explore (8^th) Plan (10^th)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KY	KCCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
LA	GEE 21	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	LEAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	iLEAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ME	MEA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ME	MHSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MD	MSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MD	HSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MA	MCAS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MI	MEAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MN	MCA	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	N	Avg. Scores
	BST	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	N	Avg. Scores
	GRAD	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Avg. Scores
MS	MCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	WA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	SATP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MO	MAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MT	ITBS/ITED	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MT	Montana CRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NE	NSWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NE	STARS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NV	ITBS/ITED	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NCRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	HSPE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NAWE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NH	NECAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NJ	NJ-ASK	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	GEPA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	HSPA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NM	NMSBA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NM	NMHSCE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NY	RCE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	RCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NYSAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NC	EOG	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	EOC	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	Computer skills	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ND	NDSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OH	OAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OH	OGT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OK	OCCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OK	EOI	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OR	OSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
PA	PSSA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
RI	NECAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NSRE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	DRA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SC	PACT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SC	HSAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SD	STEP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SD	Stanford Writing	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TN	TCAP-AT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TN	TCAP-SA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TX	TAKS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TX	EoC Algebra I	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
UT	ITBS/ITED (none)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	CCRT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	DWA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	ROGL	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	UBSCT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
VT	NSRE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NECAP	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	DRA	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
VA	SOL	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WA	WASL	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WV	WESTEST	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WI	WKCE	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WY	PAWS	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix I

Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Performance Information for ELLs with Disabilities for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-07

Note: Asterisks (*) indicate there is a state note at left

State	Test	Percent in Each Achievement Level	*Percent in Each PR Group**	Percent Proficient	Percent Not Proficient	Number in Each Achievement Level	Number Proficient	Number Not Proficient	Average Percentile Rank
AL	Alternate (AAS)	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AK	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N
AZ	AAP AIMS-A (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AZ	AIMS-A HS (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
AR	APAS (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
CA	CAPA (AAS)	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	Mean scale score
CO	CSAPA (AAS)	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N
CT	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
DE	DAPA (AAS)	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	N	N
FL	FAAR (AAS) *combined with FCAT	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
GA	GAA (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
HI	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ID	Alternate (IAA) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IL	Alternate IAA (AAS) *can be derived	Y	N	N	N*	N*	N	N	N
IN	ISTAR (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
IA	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KS	KAMM (MAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KS	Portoflio (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
KY	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
LA	LAA-1 (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
LA	LAA-2 (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
ME	PAAP (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MD	ALT-MSA (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MA	MCAS-Alt (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MI	MI-Access (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MN	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	N	Avg. scores
MS	MAAECF (AAS)	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N
MO	MAP-Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MT	NRT-ALT (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
MT	CRT-ALT (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NE	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NV	NASAA (AAS)	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	N	N
NH	NH-Alt (AAS)	Y	N	N	N	Y	N	N	Mean scaled score
NJ	APA (AAS)	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NM	Alternate (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NY	NYSAA (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
NC	NCCLAS EoG (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NCCLAS EoC (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
	NC EXTEND 1 (AAS)	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N
	NC EXTEND 2 (MAS)	N	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N
ND	NDALT (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OH	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OK	Alternate Assessment (OAAP) (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OK	Modified (OMAAP) (MAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OR	EA (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
OR	CLRAS (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
PA	PASA (AAS)	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Mean scale score
RI	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SC	SC-ALT (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
SD	STEP-A (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TN	TCAP-Alt (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
TX	SDAA-II (AAS)	N	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N
UT	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
VT	Alternate Assessment (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
VA	VAAP (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
VA	VGLAA (GLAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WA	WAAS Portfolio (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WA	WASL-Basic (Other)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
WV	APTA (AAS)	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Mean raw score
WI	WAA (AAS) * Total Pre-Req. skill/Pre-Req. English	Y*	Y	N	N	N	N	N	N
WY	PAWS-ALT (AAS)	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix J

Tables With Data for 2002-2003

Table B.1 2002-2003 Data: States Reporting Assessment Data for ELLs with Disabilities by Type of Assessment

	General State Assessments (including version in another langauge)		Other State Assessments
			Special Education Alternate		Language Proficiency		Alternative "Other" State Assessments
	Partici-pation	Perform-ance	Partici-pation	Perform-ance	Partici-pation	Perform-ance	Partici-pation	Perform-ance
California¹	X	X	X	X	X	X
Colorado²	X	X
Delaware	X	X	X	X
Maryland			X	X
Minnesota	X	X
Ohio	X	X
Texas²	X	X			X	X	X	X
Total	6	6	3	3	2	2	1	1

¹ Indicates non-identical version of general state test in another language.
² Indicates version of general state test in another language.

Table B.2 2006-2007 Data: States Reporting Data for ELLs with Disabilities by Assessment Type

States	General State Assessments (including version in another language)		Other State Assessments
			Special Education Alternate (AA-AAS)		Language Performance		Other State Assessments
	Partici-pation	Perform-ance	Partici-pation	Perform-ance	Partici-pation	Perform-ance	Partici-pation	Perform-ance
Alabama			X	X
Alaska			X	X	X	X
California	X¹	X¹	X	X	X	X	X	X
Colorado			X	X
Delaware			X	X
Illinois				X		X		X
Louisiana					X	X
Michigan					X	X
Minnesota	X	X	X	X	X	X
Mississippi			X	X
Nevada			X	X
New Hampshire			X	X
New Jersey			X	X
New York					X	X
North Carolina			X	X
North Dakota			X
Pennsylvania			X	X
Texas	X²	X²	X	X		X	X
West Virginia			X	X
Wisconsin				X
Total	3	3	15	16	6	8	2	2

¹Indicates non-identical version of general state test in another language.

²Indicates version of general state test in another language.

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix K

Participation and Performance for Students Tested with Accommodations

Grade	Subject	Accommodation	Participation	Proficiency
Michigan
		Michigan: ACCESS Functional Independence		Level 1 & 2 (prof)
3	ELA	Standard ELL only	55	46	83.6%
		Non-standard ELL only	*
	Math	Standard ELL	51	43	84.3%
		Non-standard ELL only	*
4	ELA	Standard ELL only	55	30	54.6%
		Non-standard ELL only	*
	Math	Standard ELL	46	40	86.9%
		Non-standard ELL only	*
5	ELA	Standard ELL only	54	43	79.6%
		Non-standard ELL only	*
	Math	Standard ELL	47	34	72.4%
		Non-standard ELL only	*
6	ELA	Standard ELL only	42	36	38.1%
	ELA	Non-standard ELL only	*
	Math	Standard ELL	45	39	86.6%
	Math	Non-standard ELL only	*
7	ELA	Standard ELL only	29	25	86.2%
	ELA	Non-standard ELL only	*
	Math	Standard ELL	34	23	67.6%
	Math	Non-standard ELL only	*
8	ELA	Standard ELL only	39	37	94.8%
	ELA	Non-standard ELL only	*
	Math	Standard ELL	38	28	73.7%
	Math	Non-standard ELL only	*
	ELPA Assessment (Also has mean scale score for each skill area)		Participation	Percent Proficient
Level I K	EWD	Standard Accommodations	28	15%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELLs total	Standard Accommodations	746	24%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level I gr.1	EWD	Standard Accommodations	39	3%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELLs total	Standard Accommodations	929	17%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level II gr.2	EWD	Standard Accommodations	62	6%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	3
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	612	22%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	3
Level III gr. 3	EWD	Standard Accommodations	89	13%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	2
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	567	25%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	2
Level III gr.4	EWD	Standard Accommodations	87	13%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	529	38%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level III gr. 5	EWD	Standard Accommodations	88	5%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	406	41%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level IV gr. 6	EWD	Standard Accommodations	90	2%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	485	22%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level IV gr. 7	EWD	Standard Accommodations	64	3%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	380	22%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level IV gr. 8	EWD	Standard Accommodations	54	0%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	1
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	370	19%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	1
Level V gr. 9	EWD	Standard Accommodations	61	3%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	342	16%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level V gr.10	EWD	Standard Accommodations	36	0%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	1
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	276	22%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	1
Level V gr. 11	EWD	Standard Accommodations	34	6%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	208	23%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	0
Level V gr. 12	EWD	Standard Accommodations	23	0%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	1
	ELL total	Standard Accommodations	212	21%
		Non-Standard Accommodations	1
Texas TAKS Bundled Dyslexia Accommodations			Participation (N tested)	Performance (Percent met standard)
3 English		EWD Students	714	67%
		All SpEd students	1228	81%
4 English		EWD Students	675	53%
		All SpEd students	1432	72%
5 English		EWD Students	501	50%
		All SpEd students	1228	74%
6 English		EWD Students	345	66%
		All SpEd students	831	86%
7 English		EWD Students	148	49%
		All SpEd students	403	74%
8 English		EWD Students	137	45%
		All SpEd students	366	75%
3^rd Spanish		EWD Students	244	65%
		All SpEd students	31	68%
4^th Spanish		EWD Students	180	61%
		All SpEd students	18	50%
5^th Spanish		EWD Students	58	71%
		All SpEd students	5	60%
6^th Spanish		EWD Students	1	*
		All SpEd students	0	*

Top of page