Federal regulations (U.S. Department of Education, 2007a) provide states with the flexibility to offer an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). This assessment option is for a small group of students with disabilities who can make significant progress, but may not reach grade-level achievement within the time period covered by their Individualized Education Program (IEP). Students who participate in an AA-MAS must have access to grade-level content. States are not required to offer this option. This report compiles, analyzes, and summarizes states’ participation guidelines for the AA-MAS. All criteria included in this study were publicly available on states’ Web sites.

In June 2008 nine states (California, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas) had participation guidelines for student participation on an AA-MAS, though—as of August 2008— none had successfully completed the U.S. Department of Education’s peer review process that determines whether the assessment fulfills the necessary requirements for the state to receive federal funds. Some of the states’ participation criteria included flow charts, decision trees, or checklists. Almost half of the states required that IEP teams consider implications for graduation when making decisions regarding how a student will participate in the assessment system.

The participation guidelines differed across states, but all states required the student to have an IEP. At least two-thirds of the states had the following criteria: consideration of previous performance on multiple measures, learning grade-level content, not progressing at rate expected to reach grade level proficiency within school year covered by IEP, cannot demonstrate knowledge on regular assessment even with provision of accommodations, and not based on disability category label.

Top of page

Federal legislation requires that all students, including students with disabilities, be included in state accountability systems. Many students can take the regular assessment with or without accommodations, but some students with disabilities need alternate ways to access assessments. A few students take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). In April 2007, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) regulations on modified academic achievement standards were finalized, giving states additional flexibility. States have the option of providing an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). Students who participate in this option must have an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) and have access to grade-level content. Their progress to date, in response to appropriate instruction, must be such that the student is unlikely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP. The students may be from any disability category (U.S. Department of Education, 2007a).

Some states have an assessment they consider to be an AA-MAS even though—as of November 2008—none have successfully completed the U.S. Department of Education peer review process that determines whether the assessment fulfills the necessary requirements.

In 2007 the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) tracked and analyzed states’ participation guidelines that determined which students would participate in an AA-MAS and the characteristics of states’ AA-MAS (Lazarus, Thurlow, Christensen, & Cormier, 2007). Because so much more information may now be publicly available, this year NCEO is publishing two separate updates—this report on participation guidelines and a forthcoming NCEO synthesis report on the characteristics of states’ AA-MAS (including information on test design changes).

Lazarus et al. (2007) provided a snapshot of what was happening shortly after the regulations were finalized. The landscape surrounding the AA-MAS is changing rapidly. Now that the regulations (U.S. Department of Education, 2007a) have been available for a year and a half and peer review guidance (U.S. Department of Education, 2007b) has been available almost a year—and some states have gone through the Federal peer review process (though not successfully), it is possible that there have been changes.

Specific questions that we sought to answer in this study included:

In general, procedures used for this analysis of states’ participation guidelines were similar to the procedures used in the past. This report compiles and summarizes states’ participation guidelines that included criteria for students to qualify to participate in an AA-MAS option. Data were gathered from state Web sites in June 2008. States were e-mailed the Web links to participation guidelines that we found and asked to verify that we had found the most current criteria. If additional criteria or more complete information was identified, we updated our data prior to analysis. We did not attempt to determine the degree to which the participation guidelinesmet the federal requirements.

Summary figures are in the main body of this report, while the complete tables are presented in Appendix A. A comparison was made, where possible, to similar information in the 2007 report. All information in this report that refers to 2007 participation guidelines is from Lazarus et al. (2007).

Appendix B contains a list of the documents we used in this analysis. Appendix C contains a compilation of states’ 2008 participation guidelines for those readers who would prefer to see the actual state guidelines.

Nine states—California, Connecticut, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas—had publicly available participation guidelines for student participation in an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS in June 2008. Six of these states had had participation guidelines in 2007 (e.g., Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) (Lazarus et al. 2007)—though several of them had revised the guidelines since the previous report.

The formats of the participation guidelines documents differed across states. All nine states had written descriptions of the criteria (see Figure 1). The textual description segments ranged from a few bulleted points to multiple pages. Four states had a flow chart or decision tree and three states had a checklist. The flow charts or decision trees were conceptual representations of the decision-making process. The checklists, on the other hand, were forms—typically asking a series of yes/no questions—to be completed by IEP teams. Additional details about the participation guidelines formats are available in Appendix A in Tables A-1 and A-2.

The participation guidelines of eight states allowed a combination participation testing option—e.g., a student may take different parts of different tests. For example, a student could take the regular mathematics and science assessments, and the AA-MAS reading/ELA assessment. The guidelines of two states explicitly indicated that in different content areas the student may participate in any of the assessment options (e.g., regular assessment, AA-MAS, or AA-AAS) (see Figure 2). The North Dakota guidelines listed the available assessment options, followed by the statement, "Any combination of the above in different content areas." The Kansas guidelines said, "Eligibility must be determined for each content area separately."

The guidelines of three states indicated that students may participate in more than one assessment option, but did not allow combination participation across the AA-AAS and AA-MAS. For example, in North Carolina the AA-AAS is called the NCEXTEND1 and the AA-MAS is called the NCEXTEND2. The guidelines indicated that, "The IEP team may determine that a student is to be assessed with modified academic achievement standards (NCEXTEND2) in one or more subjects for which the assessments are administered." However, later in the North Carolina guidelines, there was the following statement: "If the IEP team determines, based on the eligibility criteria shown below, that the NCEXTEND1 is the most appropriate assessment for a student, then that student must be assessed with the NCEXTEND1 in all subjects assessed at that grade level."

Additional details about combination participation are available in Appendix A, Table A-3.

Six states’ participation guidelines indicated that parents must be informed if their child will participate in an AA-MAS (see Figure 3). For example, the Connecticut guidelines stated that:

The guidelines in four states required that any implications for graduation must be considered in the decision-making process. According to the California guidelines, a student who participates in its AA-MAS assessment option was "not precluded from attempting to complete course requirements, as defined by the State, for a regular high school diploma."

Additional details about parent notification and consideration of implications for graduation requirements are available in Appendix A in Table A-4.

States had different criteria that were to be used to make participation decisions. The participation guidelines had some similarities across states—but there also were many important differences (see figure 4).

Has IEP. All nine states’ participation guidelines indicated that for a student to qualify for an AA-MAS he or she must have an IEP—that is, the student must already be identified as a student with disabilities and receiving special education services. For example, the Kansas criterion said, "The student must have a current IEP."

Learning Grade Level Content. Most states indicated that the student must be learning grade level content (n=7). In California the guidelines stated that, "The student who is assessed with the CMA [California Modified Assessment] has access to the curriculum, including instruction and materials for the grade in which the student is enrolled." And, according to Texas participation guidelines, "Every student should have an IEP that reflects access to the grade-level TEKS [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills]... "

Previous Performance on Multiple Measures. Seven states required IEP teams to consider multiple measures when making AA-MAS participation decisions. Frequently mentioned multiple measures included state, district, and classroom assessment results. For example, in Texas the participation guidelines indicated that multiple measures "may include, but are not limited to: state-developed assessments, informal and formal classroom assessments, norm-referenced tests, and criterion-referenced tests." The Maryland criterion said:

Cannot Demonstrate Knowledge on Regular Assessment Even with Provision of Accommodations. Another frequently mentioned criterion was that the student cannot demonstrate knowledge on regular assessment even with provision of accommodations (n=6 states). For example, the California criterion stated that, ‘the student will not receive a proficient score on the CST [California Standards Test] (even with the provision of accommodations) based on evidence from multiple, valid, and objective measures of student progress (or lack of progress)."

Not Based on Disability Category Label. Six states’ participation guidelines indicated that the decision should not be based on disability category labels. In Oklahoma, the decision "shall not be based on a particular disability category." Other states provided more detail. For example, Connecticut indicated that:

Not Progressing at Rate Expected to Reach Grade Level Proficiency. The participation guidelines of many states included a criterion that the student was not progressing at rate expected to reach grade level proficiency within school year covered by IEP (n=6 states). For example, the North Carolina criterion said: "The student’s progress in response to high-quality instruction is such that the student is not likely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the school year covered by the IEP." The California criterion, stated:

Goals Based on Grade Level Content Standards. More than half of the states included in this study (n=5 states) indicated that the student’s IEP goals must be based on grade-level content standards. For example, the Connecticut criterion stated, "The IEP must document goals that address the skills specified in the content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled."

Receives Accommodations During Classroom Instruction. Five states indicated that the student must receive accommodations during classroom instruction. In Connecticut, the eligibility criterion said, "Student receives classroom accommodations that have also been used during state/district assessment. And the Louisiana criterion indicated:

Receives Specialized/Individualized Instruction. The participation guidelines documents of five states included whether the student received specialized or individualized instruction as a decision-making criterion for the AA-MAS. The North Dakota criterion indicated that, "The students’ curriculum [is] so individualized that the general assessment will not reflect what the student is being taught (even with accommodations)." And Kansas indicated that for a student to qualify to participate in an AA-MAS, the student must need "significant changes in the complexity and scope of the general standards to show progress in the curriculum," and "requires intensive specially designed instruction and requires intensive individualized supports and requires extensive instruction."

Not Due to Excessive Absences, Social, Cultural, Language, Economic, or Environmental Factors. Four states indicated that decisions about whether a student qualified for participation in the AA-MAS may not be based on excessive absences, social, cultural, language, economic, or environmental factors. Often any given state did not include all of these factors in its guidelines (See Appendix A, Table A-6 for details and specifications). In Connecticut the decision-making flowchart asked the following question, "Is the student’s difficulty with regular curriculum demands primarily due to his/her disability and not due to excessive absences unrelated to the disability, or social, cultural, environmental, or economic factors?" The Connecticut guidelines also said, "Students who are solely on a 504 plan, or who are English Language Learners (ELL) and are not on an IEP, are not eligible." For California, the guidelines said:

• The decision to participate in the CMA [California Modified Assessment] is not based on excessive or extended absences.

• The decision to participate in the CMA is not based on language, culture, or economic differences.

Not Receiving Instruction Based on Extended or Alternate Standards. Four states indicated that for a student to participate in an AA-MAS, the student should not be receiving instruction based on extended or alternate standards (or that the student must not be eligible to participate in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards—i.e., AA-AAS). For example, the North Carolina criterion stated, "the student IS NOT receiving instruction in the NCSCS [North Carolina State Content Standards] through the Extended Content Standards."

Previous Performance on State Assessment. Several states (n = 4 states) indicated that a student’s previous performance on the state’s assessment should be considered. For example, the California guidelines said:

Some states guidelines specifically addressed third grade students who have not previously taken a state assessment. For example, Oklahoma’s guidelines said, "When OCCT [Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests] scores from previous years are not available (e.g., Grade 3), the IEP team may substitute scores equivalent to unsatisfactory from local assessments to identify student." North Carolina’s guidelines said, "Grade 3 students whose IEP teams feel that NCEXTEND2 is the appropriate assessment for the spring end of grade testing should participate in the general administration of the Pretest—Grade 3."

Not Based on Placement Setting. Three states’ guidelines stated that participation decisions should not be based on placement setting. For example, Louisiana’s guidelines said, "The decision to test the student in LAA2 [LEAP Alternate Assessment, Level 2] is not based on placement setting;" and Oklahoma’s guidelines said that the decision, "shall not be based on the location of service delivery."

Does Not Have a Significant Cognitive Disability. The guidelines of three states indicated that students who qualify for an AA-MAS should not have a significant cognitive disability. For example, the North Carolina guidelines said, "The student IS NOT identified as having a significant cognitive disability."

Performance Multiple Years Behind Grade Level Expectations. Two states had guidelines which indicated that the performance of students who participated in an AA-MAS should be multiple years behind grade level expectations. The Louisiana guidelines said, "Student’s IEP reflects a functioning grade level in English language arts (including reading) at least three (3) grade levels below the actual grade level in which he or she is enrolled." The Kansas guidelines asked, "Is the student multiple years behind grade level expectations?"

More detailed state specific information, specifications, and descriptions about the criteria are in Tables A-5 and A-6 in Appendix A.

The participation guidelines decision points were prioritized differently across the decision-tree documents used in several states (see the compiled criteria in Appendix C). For example, on the Kansas decision flowchart, the first decision point was whether the student’s instruction and IEP goals and objectives were based primarily on the Extended Content Standards, benchmarks, and indicators, whereas on Oklahoma’s decision tree the first decision point was whether the student had a disability resulting in "substantial academic difficulties."

There have been a number of changes to states’ participation guidelines since the 2007 report (Lazarus et al. 2007). In 2007, the criteria of four of the six states that we tracked that year indicated that the student’s performance should be multiple years behind grade level expectations. In this analysis only two states had this criterion. Four states in 2007 had a criterion that indicated that the decision should not be due to the student being identified as having a significant cognitive disability; in 2008 only two states had this criterion—though several additional states had a similar criteria which stated that the student must not be receiving instruction based on extended or alternate standards (e.g., not eligible to take the AA-AAS).

In July 2008 nine states had participation guidelines for students to qualify to participate in an assessment that the state considered to be an AA-MAS option. None of these states has yet successfully completed the U.S. Department of Education’s peer review process.

Key findings included:

Decision points were prioritized differently across decision-tree documents used in several states. Differences in the order of the filtering criteria may lead to different decisions regarding which students qualify to participate in an AA-MAS.

In 2008 many of the states’ participation guidelines used terminology, phrases, and participation criteria that appear to be drawn from the federal regulations; this was a change from 2007 when most of the states had criteria that had been developed prior to the implementation of the regulations.

This analysis did not attempt to determine the extent to which state policies complied with federal requirements under NCLB or IDEA. Those determinations would need to be made by the appropriate federal authorities. This report is a descriptive analysis of the written policies that states had for the identification of students with disabilities for assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in June 2008. But, it is important to note that Filbin (2008), in an analysis of the initial March 2008 federal peer review of states’ AA-MAS, wrote, "Although none of these States met all of the requirements, each State was able to provide adequate evidence for a number of the elements. However, several specific requirements emerged as problematic across all States" (p. 1). According to Filbin (2008), one of the problematic areas was "State-defined guidelines for eligibility to ensure that the appropriate students are identified" (p. 3). Filbin also indicated that, "Regardless of the group of students that the State chooses to target, the initial challenge for each State will be documenting the learning characteristics of the students eligible to participate in the AA-MAS and using this information as the basis for test development" (pp. 3–4).

In this report we make no evaluative comments about the various participation guidelines approaches that states have taken. For information about relevant research, refer the NCEO Web site at http://www.nceo.info. We anticipate that the landscape surrounding states’ participation guidelines for AA-MAS will continue to change rapidly. Some of the states probably will revise their participation guidelines in response to peer review. Also, additional states are currently either in the process of—or exploring the possibility of—developing an AA-MAS.

State documents used in the analysis of states’ criteria for participation in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards are listed below. These documents were downloaded from state Web sites in June 2008.