Uneven Transparency: NCLB Tests Take Precedence in Public Assessment Reporting for Students with Disabilities
NCEO Technical Report 43
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Prepared by:
Jean A. Klein • Hilda Ives Wiley • Martha L. Thurlow
March 2006
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Klein, J. A., Wiley, H. I., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities (Technical Report 43). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical43.html
Executive Summary
This report marks the eighth analysis conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) of the public reporting of state assessment results for students with disabilities. This is the third analysis that NCEO has conducted since the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Overall, a total of 48 states reported some state-level information about students with disabilities on their state assessments: 35 reported participation and performance for all their general assessments, 11 reported participation and performance data for some of these, 2 reported only performance information, and 2 did not report information. When considering only tests that were part of NCLB accountability systems, more states reported all information publicly: 44 states reported participation and performance information for all these assessments, 2 reported participation and performance information for some of these assessments, 2 reported only performance information for all these assessments, and 2 did not report information.For alternate assessments, only 36 states reported any information. Thirty-three states reported both participation and performance data for their alternate assessments. One state reported only performance data and two reported only participation data for their alternate assessments. Fourteen states did not report participation or performance information about their alternate assessments.
For states’ general assessments, 34 states reported either the percent of students tested or not tested for at least one of their assessments (53 assessments total). The number of students tested continues to be the most common way of reporting participation (79 assessments). The number or percent of students who were exempt or excluded from assessments was given for 13 tests and the number or percent of students absent was given for 19 tests. For states’ alternate assessments, the most common way of reporting participation information was to give the number of students tested; this was the approach of 32 states. Twenty states gave a rate of either a percent tested or percent not tested.
When we examined the performance of students, we found that for the general assessment large gaps existed between students with disabilities and all students. Though some gaps were significantly larger than others, the gaps were noticeable for all states that provided performance data. Gaps tended to be larger at higher grades. In a few instances, a larger percentage of students with disabilities achieved proficiency compared to all students. In later reports, this should be followed to see whether this is a trend for students with disabilities. In examining six years of data from states that had publicly reported information using the same test (11 states), we found that, in general, it appeared that a higher percentage of students with disabilities achieved proficiency in later years for both reading and math. When examining publicly reported information for all students over the past three years, a similar trend was found. The gap between the percentage of all students who achieve proficiency and students with disabilities appears to continue to be quite large.
Overall, this report reinforces what was found for the 2002–2003 school year data. States are improving their public reporting practices, but the improvement is gradual. These improvements include more states reporting test information for accountability tests and an increase in information provided on alternate assessments. However, there are still improvements that need to be made. This report discusses the results of the study and provides recommendations for how states can continue to improve their public reporting practices.
Overview
It has been more than a decade since researchers first realized the importance of including all students in statewide tests (McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner, & Spiegel, 1992; Zlatos, 1994). Since that time, much has changed with regard to accountability at the state, district, and school levels. Where schools once were required to base progress of students with disabilities only on individualized goals and accountability focused on school compliance with federal procedures, accountability now is driven by student performance on statewide tests (McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003). Public reporting of state assessment participation and performance information has been tracked by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) since 1997.
At the same time that researchers were recognizing that students with disabilities needed to be included in statewide assessments, legislation to require public reporting was moving in this direction as well. In 1994, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) required that students with disabilities be considered part of “all students” and thus be included in statewide tests and then measured against state standards. In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) first required that states ensure that all students with disabilities participate in all state and district assessments. In 2001, ESEA was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which proposed specific guidelines for the participation of students and subgroups in statewide tests and also required states to publicly report student participation and performance for accountability (Fast, Blank, Potts, & Williams, 2002). The purpose of this was to ensure that all students achieve proficiency by 2013–2014. This was followed most recently by the reauthorization of IDEA (2004) as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. It required that states ensure that all students with disabilities “are included in all general State and districtwide assessment programs, including assessments described in section 1111 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 6311, with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments, if necessary, and as indicated in their respective IEPs.” As in IDEA 1997, IDEA 2004 requires that:
The State educational agency (or, in the case of a districtwide assessment, the Local educational agency) makes available to the public, and reports to the public with the same frequency and in the same detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children, the following:
(i) The number of children with disabilities participating in regular assessments, and the number of those children who were provided accommodations in order to participate in those assessments.
(ii) The number of children with disabilities participating in alternate assessments described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(I).
(iii) The number of children with disabilities participating in alternate assessments described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(II). (Section 612(a)(16)(D))
Since NCLB was passed, there has been an increase in the number and type of reports that states provide to the public. When comparing the 2000–2001 school year to 2001–2002 school year, the number of states that publicly reported participation and performance data increased from 28 to 35 (Thurlow & Wiley, 2004; Thurlow, Wiley, & Bielinski, 2003). In 2002–2003, this number further increased to 36 states (Wiley, Thurlow, & Klein, 2005). The number of states that reported participation and performance information for their alternate assessment has also shown increases. More specifically, 22 states reported this information in 2001–2002 while 29 reported it in 2002–2003 (Thurlow & Wiley, 2004; Wiley et al., 2005).
Some writers have suggested that most states are able to demonstrate performance improvements in all subgroups, except for students who are learning English and students with disabilities (Schwartzbeck, 2003). Because of this perception, as well as the NCLB requirement, it is crucial that we continue to follow the methods of publicly reporting information on students with disabilities.
The 2003–2004 school year is the second year that states are required to report on the performance of students with disabilities on their state math and reading assessments based on state standards. This report marks the eighth in a line of NCEO reports that document state public reporting policies. In addition, this report is the first to include the unique states (i.e., American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Commonwealth of Marianna Islands, District of Columbia, Guam, Palau, Puerto Rico, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Virgin Islands). Additionally, the 2003–2004 school year may be when some states have had time to revise their tests and accountability systems to be more in line with the tenets of NCLB. This report will seek to illuminate these changes as well as discuss the common ways in which states are reporting these results to the public.
Method
We began our search for information by reviewing every state’s Department of Education Web site as well as the Web sites for the 10 unique states (i.e., American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Commonwealth of Marianna Islands, District of Columbia, Guam, Palau, Puerto Rico, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Virgin Islands). We began collecting data in September 2004 and collected information for the 2003–2004 school year. We recorded the names of the assessments that were administered and documented whether participation and performance information was reported for students with disabilities. We also examined the way in which participation was reported and whether participation and performance information were reported for students who took the test with accommodations. By September 2004, a large percentage of the states had already posted their 2003–2004 assessment data online in a way that made the data easy to locate and understand.
On February 4, 2005, we mailed a letter to each state director of assessment outlining our findings from the state’s Web site (Appendix A). We asked them to review our findings, correct any misinformation, and provide the public document or Web site where the correct information was available. We asked that they send us these changes by February 28, 2005. Many states directed us to a Web page that we had not found in our search. While a few sent paper copies of information, we were able to find this information on state Web sites as well. Several states gave us dates by which they expected their disaggregated assessment results to be posted. Overall, we received responses from 42 directors of assessment.
To ensure that our findings were as accurate as possible, we followed up these efforts with a letter to each state’s director of special education (Appendix B). These letters were mailed on May 12, 2005. The letters asked the directors to review our findings and make any changes by June 9, 2005. For states that had already provided a response from the director of assessment, we noted that in the letter by stating that “these results were verified by your state’s director of assessment, but if you have anything to add, please let us know.” For states whose director of assessment did not respond, we sent the same letter to the director of special education as we had sent to the director of assessment. In a few cases where we had been able to verify some of the information sent to us by the director of assessment, we sent a personalized letter documenting what information we still needed. These letters were sent out to the directors of special education on June 2, 2005, and changes were due back by June 17, 2005. Of the 50 states and 10 unique states to which we sent letters, 27 responded with either corrections or to verify that the information that we had was correct.
Finally, there were still four states for which we had not heard back from either the director of assessment or the director of special education. For three of these states we had found information on students with disabilities for all their regular and alternate assessments. For the other state, results were reported annually at the district level, but not the state level.
It should be noted that in three cases, personnel indicated that information was
publicly available on request. When this occurred, we attempted to obtain this
information. In cases where substantial effort was extended to obtain
participation or performance data, but we could not obtain the document, the
information was not considered publicly reported.
Characteristics of State Assessment Systems
Appendix C lists all the state mandated general assessments that we identified for the 50 states and the 10 unique states. This list includes the state, the name of the test, the grades and content areas tested, and whether the state had publicly available disaggregated participation and performance data for students with disabilities for their 2003–2004 state assessments. For the 50 states, we identified 112 separate statewide tests. Thirty–five states had more than one general assessment. For the unique states, six separate assessment systems were found and no state gave more than one assessment.
Because very little information was available from the unique states, the following results include only information from the 50 states. Figure 1 breaks down the 112 testing systems by type: norm-referenced tests (NRT), criterion-referenced tests (CRT), exit tests used as a gate for graduation or earning a particular type of diploma (EXIT), and tests that combined standardized NRTs with additional state-developed test items (NRT/CRT). While we recognized that many exit exams may also be NRTs, CRTs, or both, the high stakes consequences for students of these exit exams indicated a need to create a separate category for these tests.
Criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) comprised 61% of all the assessments that
states administered in 2003–2004. In fact, only eight states (Delaware, Florida,
Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota) did not
administer a separate CRT, though six of those states administered a test with
both CRT and NRT components (only Iowa and Montana administered only an NRT).
Norm-referenced tests comprised 16% of the tests and exit exams also comprised
16% of tests administered. These numbers are similar to the 2002–2003 assessment
pattern, in which 58% of tests were CRTs, 18% were NRTs, and 18% were exit exams
(Wiley et al., 2005).
States Reporting Disaggregated 2003–2004 General Assessment Data for Students with Disabilities
Figure 2 summarizes the different ways in which general assessment data were
reported in all 50 states. Overall, 70% percent of states reported disaggregated
participation and performance information on students with disabilities for all
their assessments, 4% percent reported performance for all assessments but not
participation data, 22% percent reported participation and performance
information for some assessments, and 4% percent did not report any
disaggregated information.
Figure 3 indicates which of the 50 states reported their data in each of the
four ways shown in Figure 2. States that reported disaggregated data for
students with disabilities at the state level generally reported results at the
district and school level, too.
Figure 3. States that Reported 2003-2004 Disaggregated Results for Students with Disabilities
Figure 4 shows the states that reported participation and performance data for the tests that they include in their statewide accountability systems. Only a subset of assessments in many states are part of their No Child Left Behind accountability system. When we examined just the NCLB assessments, we found that 44 states reported participation and performance for students with disabilities on all of these assessments. Although this is more than the number of states reporting information on all the assessments given in a state, it is still not all of them. As evident in Figure 4, the states that do disaggregate for all accountability assessments are spread across the U.S. and have both small and large populations. The states that reported disaggregated 2003–2004 data for their general assessments did so regardless of whether they had just one assessment or multiple assessments (i.e., 25 of the 45 had more than one assessment included in their accountability system), and regardless of whether they tested in just a few grades or in as many as 10 grades.
Figure 4. States that Reported 2003–2004 Disaggregated Results for Students with Disabilities in their NCLB Accountability Systems
Of the two states that reported participation and performance information for
some of their accountability assessments, Oklahoma was only missing data on one
test. Furthermore, Florida indicated that all of its data were available on
request. For those states that only reported performance results, Pennsylvania
reported participation at the district and school level. Of those that did not
report disaggregated information at the state level, Oregon reported
disaggregated information at the district level.
Unique States Reporting Information on their General Assessments
As noted earlier, this report is the first to include unique states in the analysis of publicly reported information for students with disabilities. Because many of the unique states did not have information that was found to be publicly reported, we will only briefly mention them here. Table 1 contains a summary of the unique states and whether they reported participation or performance information on students with disabilities. Of the ten unique states, only two states publicly reported disaggregated information on the participation and performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments: the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the District of Columbia. It is noteworthy that students who are part of the BIA live throughout the United States and do not take the same assessment. Rather, these students participate in the assessment systems of the state in which they live.
Almost all of the unique states administer a Norm-Referenced Test. The only unique state to administer a Criterion-Referenced Test is Palau. In looking at the reporting practices of the District of Columbia and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, both report the number of students with disabilities who participate in statewide assessments. BIA also reports the percentage of students tested.
State |
Disaggregated Special Education Data |
|
Participation |
Performance |
|
|
American Samoa |
No |
No |
|
Bureau of Indian Affairs |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands |
No |
No |
|
District of Columbia |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Federated States of Micronesia |
No |
No |
|
Guam |
No |
No |
|
Palau |
No |
No |
|
Puerto Rico |
No |
No |
|
Republic of the Marshall Islands |
No |
No |
|
Virgin Islands |
No |
No |
States Reporting 2003–2004 Alternate Assessment
Data for Students with Disabilities
As shown in Figure 5, results from our Web searches and mailings revealed that 33 regular states publicly reported both participation and performance results at the state-level for their alternate assessment. An additional two states reported participation only, and one state reported only performance information. Fourteen states (i.e., 28% of all states) did not report any type of information about their alternate assessment. However, 66% of states did report both participation and performance for their alternate assessment, which is an increase over 58% in the 2002–2003 school year.
Figure 5. Information States Reported for their Alternate
Assessments
Figure 6 illustrates which states reported alternate assessment participation and performance data. There is no obvious geographic pattern to the states that did not report alternate assessment data.
Figure 6. States Publicly Reporting State-Level Data for the 2003–2004 Alternate Assessment
Assessment Participation in 2003–2004
General Assessment Participation Results
The way in which participation data for students with disabilities was reported varied among the states shown to provide it (Appendix D). Figure 7 illustrates the number of assessments with disaggregated participation data and how those participation data were reported. Information is presented in terms of the number of assessments for which participation data were available, not in terms of the number of states. For example, in Alabama there are four assessments and each is counted separately. We used this approach because not all states report participation in the same way across assessments. For example, one state might report only a count of students tested for one assessment, but for another assessment it might report a count tested, a percent tested, and a percent not tested.
Figure 7. Participation Reporting Approaches for General Assessments (Number of Tests = 89)
Reporting a percentage of students tested is more informative than just reporting the number of students tested, although there are good reasons to report both the number and the percentage. Thirty-four states (53 assessments total) reported either the percent of students tested or the percent not tested for at least one of their assessments, which is an increase from the 27 that reported rates in 2002–2003. For 49 assessments, the percent of students tested was given, and for 30 assessments, the percent of students not tested was given (though these numbers are not mutually exclusive). Seventy-nine assessments provided the number of students tested, making this the most frequent way of reporting participation data. The number or percent of students who were exempt or excluded from assessments was given for 13 tests and the number or percent of students absent was given for 19 tests.
Figure 8 illustrates the participation rates reported in those states for which there was clear participation rate information reported. Though the percentage of students tested or not tested was given for 53 assessments, those assessments came from only 34 states. While it may have been possible to calculate participation rates for other states as well, using information that was reported about student enrollment and the number of students tested, we did not take the extra step to do the math calculations. This is because we were concerned about the information that was readily available. However, if the state did provide only the percentage of students not tested, we did report the percentage of students tested in the table. It is important that states report the percentage of students tested, in addition to just a count, because this presents a more accurate picture of how many students are participating. These rates should ideally be based on the school enrollment on the day of testing (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Teelucksingh, & Seyfarth, 1998). Using the December 1st Child Count data is also an acceptable option if test day enrollment is not available.
Figure 8. Percentages of Students with Disabilities Participating in Middle School General Assessments in Those States with Clear Participation Reporting of Rates
To summarize participation rate information, we selected one grade to portray in
Figure 8. In most states, participation in the middle school/junior high school
math test was used. If the state tested in more than one grade in the middle
school level, the 8th grade test data were used. Appendix E contains information
about the tests and exact grades used for Figure 8. Percentages in the figure
are rounded to the nearest whole number. Not all states provided data broken
down in this way. In nine states (i.e., Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin), the
data were given for the math test but the grade levels were all aggregated. In
California, a rate was provided but it was number of students with disabilities
tested out of all students rather than a percent of students with disabilities
who were tested. In Idaho, a percent of participation was given for the
elementary reading assessment that was not included in this analysis. It is
important to note that results in Figure 8 were obtained from different types of
tests that were being used in these states. Nevertheless, during this 2003–2004
academic year, participation rates ranged from 78% to 100% and 16 out of the 21
states had participation rates of 95% or higher.
Alternate Assessment Participation Results
Figure 9 illustrates how states reported participation for their alternate assessment. Much greater participation information was provided this year (2003–2004) compared to the previous testing year. Appendix F outlines in more detail all the ways that information is reported. Thirty-five states provided participation information for their alternate assessments. All states provided information on just one alternate assessment except for North Carolina which provided information on two alternate assessments. For Figure 9, North Carolina is reflected as one state and all of the ways that participation data were reported in the two alternates were counted.
Similar to reporting for the regular assessment, the most common way of reporting participation information for the alternate assessment was to give the number of students tested. This was done by 32 states; 20 states gave a rate, which was either the percent of students tested, not tested, or both. Four states provided the number or percent of students who were exempt or excluded, and five states provided either the number or percent of students who were absent.
Figure 9. Participation Reporting Approaches for Alternate
Assessments (Number of States = 32)
Twenty states provided a rate of either the percent of students tested or the percent not assessed in their alternate assessments. These rates are shown in Figures 10, 11, and 12. Appendix G provides more details about the grades and content areas included in the figures. When possible, we tried to use rates from 8th grade math. We divided this information into three figures because there were three different ways in which participation data were presented by states. Six states gave the percent of students assessed out of the total number who were eligible/recommended to take the alternate assessment (Figure 10). North Carolina administered two alternate assessments (NC-1 indicates the AAAI and NC-2 indicates the Portfolio Assessment), and both of these are shown in Figure 10.
Eight states provided information on the percent of students assessed on the alternate assessment out of all the students enrolled (see Figure 11). Finally, five states provided information about the number of students who participated in the alternate assessment out of all students with disabilities (see Figure 12). Three states (Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin) included alternate assessment participation with other general assessments. Because these percentages also reflect the participation of students with disabilities in the general assessments, they are not included here.
Figure 10. Percentages of Students with Disabilities Assessed with the Alternate Assessment Out of the Total Number of Students Recommended/Eligible for the Alternate Assessment
Figure 11. Percentages of Students with Disabilities Assessed with the Alternate Assessment Out of the Total Number of Enrolled Students
Figure 12. Percentages of Students with Disabilities Assessed with the Alternate Assessment Out of the Total Number of Students with Disabilities
Other Information Collected for 2003–2004
In our analysis of state reporting for 2003–2004, we looked at additional
characteristics of states’ publicly reported information. Specifically, we
looked at information available on accommodations used, and if available,
performance when accommodations were used. We also examined the quality of
Web-based reporting.
Accommodations
Sixteen states provided state-level information about students who took an assessment with an accommodation. In some cases, states reported on standard accommodations (those considered to not change the constructs measured by the assessment), in other cases they reported on nonstandard accommodations (which generally were considered to change the constructs measured—and might be referred to as “non-allowed”—although IEP teams could select them), and in other cases they reported on both or did not specify which.
Table 2 describes the information the 16 states provided. Appendix H contains
additional information about the data provided by these states, with details
about the participation and performance of students in each category that the
state provided. New Mexico indicated that accommodation results are available on
request. Four states reported student participation and performance by specific
accommodation (e.g., directions read orally, braille, extended time), whereas
twelve states provided only overall information on students who, in general,
used accommodations.
Table 2. States that Reported State-Level Information about Accommodations for Reading or Math
|
State |
Standard/Non-standard Accommodation |
Participation |
Performance |
For whom |
|
Arizona |
Standard and Non-Standard |
Yes |
No |
SWD |
|
Colorado* |
Standard |
Yes |
Yes |
ALL |
Non-Standard |
Yes |
No |
ALL |
|
|
Iowa |
Non-Standard |
Yes |
No |
SWD |
|
Indiana |
Standard |
Yes |
Yes |
SWD & ALL |
|
Kansas |
Not specified |
Yes |
No |
SWD & ALL |
|
Kentucky |
Standard |
Yes |
Yes |
SWD |
|
Louisiana* |
Standard |
Yes |
Yes |
ALL |
|
Maine |
Not Specified |
Yes |
No |
SWD |
|
Michigan |
Standard & Non-Standard |
Yes |
Yes |
ALL |
|
Missouri* |
Not Specified |
Yes |
Yes |
SWD |
|
Nebraska |
Not specified |
Yes |
No |
SWD & ALL |
|
North Carolina* |
Standard & Non-Standard |
Yes |
Yes |
ALL |
|
Ohio |
Standard |
Yes |
Yes |
SWD & ALL |
|
Oklahoma |
Non-Standard |
Yes |
No |
SWD |
|
Rhode Island |
Non-Standard |
Yes |
No |
SWD |
|
Wyoming |
Standard & Non-Standard |
Yes |
No |
SWD |
Note: SWD=
Students with Disabilities
* Report by specific
accommodation.
** For New Mexico, information can be requested.
Quality Analysis of Web-based Reporting
As we analyzed the participation and performance reporting on states’ Department of Education Web sites, it became evident that some states presented data in a much more accessible format than others. Because assessment data are reported on the Web in most states, it is crucial that these data be clear and easy to access. We examined the quality of the states’ reporting on their Web sites. It is important to note, however, that because Web sites are frequently updated, it is possible that some of our findings no longer hold true.
Several states (e.g., California, Connecticut, Washington, and Wisconsin) used drop down menus that allowed an individual to select the test, year, grade, and status of students of interest. The Web site then displayed a chart of the data scores in question. In some cases, these charts were relatively easy to understand and provided a way of assessing how the test was scored and what percentage of students attained satisfactory scores. Other states provided the percentage of students attaining a given score, but it was not clear which set of scores constituted satisfactory completion of the test (e.g., New York for the Regents Competency Test). Several states had written summaries of their state’s test results (e.g., Colorado, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Oklahoma). Others had PowerPoint slides that contained some of the participation and performance information (e.g., Oklahoma). In several cases, states directed us to the state’s Annual Performance Report (APR). This report provides information on a variety of aspects of how states serve students with disabilities, including some of the information addressed in this report (e.g., participation and performance of students on general and alternate assessments, the use of accommodations).
Assessment Performance in 2003–2004
General Assessment Performance Results
We examined the performance of all students, and then the performance of students with disabilities. When examining performance across states, it is important to remember that state tests are different, both in terms of content and proficiency levels. The tests may emphasize different standards and are likely to differ in difficulty. In addition, there may be variability across states in the percentages of students with disabilities whose scores are reported. Thus, it is not appropriate to compare performance across states. It is possible, however, to examine the performance differences within each state between all students and students with disabilities.
Performance results are reported for both reading and math assessments because these content domains are the ones assessed by most states and are the content areas required first by NCLB to be assessed, reported, and included in accountability. For greater comparability in what we report, and because states are now moving away from norm-referenced tests toward wider use of criterion-referenced tests, we only report performance on CRTs. We also report performance on exit exams that students are required to pass to graduate from high school with a standard diploma.
We separated grade levels into three categories: elementary (3–5), middle school (6–8), and high school (9–12). For our summary, we chose to present only one grade for each level. When available, 4th grade was used to represent the elementary level, 8th grade to represent the middle school level, and 10th grade to represent the high school level. These grades were chosen because they are the grades at which the greatest number of states test students. If data from those grades were not available, the grade below was used, followed by the remaining grade if no other data were available. The number in the parenthesis next to the state’s name indicates the grade from which the data were obtained. Appendix I reports the name of the test we used and the grade.
Although most states reported the performance of all students and then the performance of subgroups, such as students with disabilities, some states did not report the performance of all students. When these data were not available, the performance of general education students was given. Because the performance of general education students as a group may be slightly higher than the performance of all students as a group, we have indicated those states with “all students” actually based only on general education students by an asterisk after the name of the state.
It should further be noted that one state (Vermont) only provided subtest scores on its assessments. In this case, subtest scores for reading skills and math basic understanding are reported. States were dropped if they only reported aggregated scores across grades. Thus, Rhode Island is not reflected in any of the figures because it provided only aggregated data across grades for its students with disabilities. Additionally, some states aggregated across a particular group of grades. For example, West Virginia aggregates across the elementary, middle, and high school grades. These scores are included but identified by using “EL” for elementary aggregation, “MS” for aggregation across the middle school grades, and “HS” for aggregation across high school.
Reading Performance
Figures 13–15 present the reading performance of students. The performance of students with disabilities in reading is generally much lower than the performance of all students. There are a few instances where the percentage of students with disabilities scoring proficient was higher than the percentage of all students scoring proficient. Both Arizona and Georgia reported higher rates of proficient elementary students with disabilities in reading compared to all students.
The gaps in performance are variable, with few evident patterns. Gaps between students with disabilities and general education students increased with grade level.
Figure 13. Elementary School Reading Performance on Criterion-Referenced Tests
Figure 14. Middle School Reading Performance on Criterion-Referenced Tests
Figure 15. High School Reading Performance on Criterion-Referenced Test
Mathematics Performance
Performance of all students and students with disabilities on states’ 2003–2004 mathematics assessments is shown in Figures 16–18. The figures cover elementary, middle, and high school. The same cautions apply to these figures as applied to the reading figures.
As shown in Figures 16–18, the gap between students with disabilities and all students on math assessments is quite similar to the gap found for reading assessments. The gap for math assessments exists in all states and varies considerably from state to state. Generally, the gap increases by grade level. Students with disabilities typically perform lower when compared to either regular education or all students. However, there are a few instances where this is not the case. At the elementary level, there are two instances where a higher percentage of students with disabilities achieved proficiency when compared to all students at that grade level (Georgia and Virginia).
Figure 16. Elementary School Mathematics Performance on Criterion-Referenced Tests
Figure 17. Middle School Mathematics Performance on Criterion-Referenced Tests
Figure 18: High School Mathematics Performance on Criterion-Referenced Tests
Figures 19 and 20 show the results of high school reading and math exit exams. States administer exit exams in different grades. The number in the parenthesis next to the state’s name indicates the grade from which the data come. If the exit exam incorporates multiple high school grades, this is indicated by “HS.”
Only those states that report disaggregated results for students with disabilities are included in these figures. These results reflect only the first administration of the exit exam. States offer multiple retest opportunities for their exit exams, and the percent passing increases with each retest. Often the gaps between general and special education students become very small on retesting. New York offers two exit exams: the Regent’s Comprehensive Exam and the Regent’s Competency Test. The Regent’s Competency Test is a “safe harbor” assessment implemented only for students with disabilities and those who received special education services in previous years. However, New York provides a percentage of students who passed both tests. This percentage is presented in Figures 19 and 20.
The figures presented here for first administration show that large gaps exist for exit exams, though the percent of students passing the exit exams varies widely by state. The data have to be viewed in light of unique state policies about the ways in which students can earn proficient scores. In some states, such as Arizona for example, students can pass the assessment with a lower score than students without disabilities.
Figure 19. Percent Passing Minimum Competency/High School Reading Exit Exam
Figure 20. Percent Passing Minimum Competency/High School Mathematics Exit Exam
Assessment Performance: Trends
As part of an earlier analysis (Thurlow et al., 2003), we examined the performance of students with disabilities for states that had at least three years of publicly reported data. In light of the changes that were brought about by NCLB, we decided to examine states that reported six years of data using the same assessment. In 2000–2001, 13 states had publicly reported information on their statewide tests for three years for both math and reading (California, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, and Washington). Colorado reported three years of information only for the reading test and Kansas reported information only for the math test. In 2003–2004, 11 states have six years of publicly reported information on their statewide tests (California, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington). Similar to the previous report, we have six years of information for Colorado for the reading test and from Kansas for the math test. Texas and Maryland were no longer included because they had changed their tests. Minnesota, which did not report performance information in 2002–2003 (Wiley et al., 2005) and Utah, which aggregated its performance information across all grades in 2003–2004, also could not be included in the six year analyses.
Reading Tests
Figures 21–23 show the percentages of students with disabilities achieving proficiency on state assessments at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. In general, it appears that for elementary school students with disabilities a higher percentage of students are achieving proficiency in reading in the later years. A few states have some spikes or drops (California, Louisiana), but it may be that tests were being adjusted with the passage of NCLB.
At the middle school level, it appears that most states had a higher percentage of students achieving proficiency in 2001–2002. The exceptions are California and Louisiana. At the high school level, a much smaller percentage of students achieved proficiency, but this number gradually increases in later years.
Figure 21. Six-Year Trends of the Percentage of Elementary Students with Disabilities Who Achieved Proficiency on Statewide Reading Exams
Figure 22. Six-Year Trends of the Percentage of Middle School Students with Disabilities Who Achieved Proficiency on Statewide Reading Exams
Figure 23. Six-Year Trends of the Percentage of High School Students with Disabilities Who Achieved Proficiency on Statewide Reading Exams
Math Tests
Figures 24–26 show the percentages of students with disabilities achieving proficiency on state assessments at the elementary, middle, and high school levels for math. In general, it appears that for elementary school students with disabilities a higher percentage of students are achieving proficiency in math in later years, particularly when comparing the years after NCLB was passed. A few states have some spikes or drops (California, Louisiana), but it may be that tests were being adjusted with the passage of NCLB.
A similar pattern can be observed at the middle and high school level as well. Again, California and Louisiana have spikes prior to 2003–2004, but this may be the result of changes in the test. When comparing the 2001–2002 school year to 2003–2004, and with the exception of Louisiana, students with disabilities are achieving a higher level of proficiency in 2003–2004.
Figure 24. Six-Year Trends of the Percentage of Elementary Students with Disabilities Who Achieved Proficiency on Statewide Mathematics Exams
Figure 25. Six-Year Trends of the Percentage of Middle School Students with Disabilities Who Achieved Proficiency on Statewide Mathematics Exams
Figure 26. Six-Year Trends of the Percentage of High School Students with Disabilities Who Achieved Proficiency on Statewide Mathematics Exams
Discussion
There have been many areas of improvement for statewide public reporting. For public reporting of general assessments, it appears that about the same number of states are reporting information for all their tests, regardless of whether they are included in state accountability systems (35 in 2003–2004 compared to 36 in 2002–2003). However, for tests in NCLB accountability systems, improvement is evident. In 2003–2004, 44 states reported both performance and participation information for all the tests in their NCLB accountability system while 40 did so in 2002–2003.
A total of 48 states reported some state-level information about students with disabilities on their state assessments. Of these states, 35 reported participation and performance for all their assessments, 11 reported participation and performance data for some of their tests, 2 only reported performance information, and 2 did not report information. This is close to the results of 2002–2003 (Wiley et al., 2005). However, when considering only tests that are part of NCLB accountability systems, 44 reported participation and performance information for all their assessments, 2 reported participation and performance information for some of their assessments, 2 reported performance information for all their assessments, and 2 did not report information.
When examining alternate assessments, only 36 states reported any information. This is the same as 2002–2003. However, more states reported both participation and performance data for their alternate assessments (33 in 2003–2004 compared to 29 in 2002–2003). One state reported only performance data (compared to 4 in 2002–2003) and 2 reported only participation data for their alternate assessment (compared to 3 in 2002–2003). Fourteen states did not report participation or performance information about their alternate assessment.
For their general assessments, 34 states reported either the percent of students tested or not tested for at least one of their assessments (53 assessments total). This is a much more informative way of presenting data than just giving the number of students tested. However, the number of students tested still continues to be the most common way of reporting participation (79 assessments). The number or percent of students who were exempt or excluded from assessments was given for 1 test and the number or percent of students absent was given for 19 tests. For their alternate assessments, the most common way of reporting participation information was to give the number of students tested, which was done by 32 states. Twenty states gave a rate, which is an increase from 15 in 2002–2003.
When we examined the performance of students for the general assessment, we found that large gaps existed between students with disabilities and all students. Though some gaps were much larger than others, the gaps were noticeable for all states that provided performance data. Gaps were larger at higher grades. In a few instances, a higher percentage of students with disabilities achieved proficiency compared to all students. This finding should be followed in future years to see whether this is a trend for students with disabilities in these states.
It appears that across years there are gradual improvements in the percentage of students with disabilities who achieve proficiency on statewide reading and math tests. These trends are most evident in the elementary grades, and seem to dissipate somewhat at the middle school level and even more at the high school level (though it is difficult to tell this because so few states have data). It will be important to continue to follow these trends.
In the second year following NCLB, it is interesting to see that many states are making strides toward reporting disaggregated participation and performance data, at least as it relates to the tests in their accountability systems. Still there are improvements that could be made, particularly in relation to reporting on alternate assessments. Fourteen states are still not reporting participation and performance data for this assessment. It may be that this is because states are revising these assessments in light of new requirements (throughout 2003). Yet, the number seems higher than expected.
There have definitely been improvements since 2002–2003 in the reporting of state assessment data, and this trend will likely continue for 2004–2005. Continued checking on the reporting practices of states and on the participation levels and performance achieved by students with disabilities is important.
References
Fast, E. F., Blank, R. K., Potts, A., & Williams, A. (2002). A guide to effective accountability reporting. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Spiegel, A. N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
McLaughlin, M. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2003). Educational accountability and students with disabilities: Issues and challenges. Educational Policy, 17(4), 431–451.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002).
Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2003). Targeting subgroups. School Administrator, 60(11), 16–20.
Thurlow, M. L., & Wiley, H. I. (2004). Almost there in public reporting of assessment results for students with disabilities (Technical Report 39). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M. L., Wiley, H. I., & Bielinski, J. (2003). Going public: What 2000–2001 reports tell us about the performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Wiley, H. I., Thurlow, M. L., & Klein, J. A. (2005). Steady progress: State public reporting practices for students with disabilities after the first year of NCLB (2002–2003) (Technical Report 40). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Langenfeld, K. L., Nelson, J. R., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Technical Report 23). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Zlatos, B. (1994). Don’t test, don’t tell: Is “academic red-shirting” skewing the way we rank our schools? The American School Board Journal 191(11), 24–28.
Appendix A
Verification Letter to State Assessment Director
The National Center on Educational Outcomes is examining states’ public reports on 2003–2004 school year assessment results. We have reviewed your Web site for both participation and performance data on your statewide assessments. At this time, we were unable to find any information regarding the name of the tests you administer, the grades and subject areas that are tested or the results of those tests. We were also unable to find any information on how participation information is reported for students with disabilities (if it is available) and whether information is given about students who took assessments with individual accommodations.
Please provide us with information on the name of the tests you administer, the grades and subject areas tested by each test as well as where we can find participation and performance data for these tests. Our goal is to (a) identify all components of each state’s testing system, (b) determine whether each state reports disaggregated test results for students with disabilities, (c) describe the way participation information is presented, and (d) describe how states report results for students who took the test with accommodations or modifications.
If there is publicly reported information available for your state, please provide us with the public document and/or website that contains the accurate information. Address your responses to Jenny Klein at the above address.
If you have any questions about our request, please call Jenny Klein at (612) 626-0658 or email: klei0321@umn.edu. If we do not hear from you by February 28, 2005, we will assume there is no publicly available information.
Thank you for taking the time to provide this information.
Sincerely,
Jenny Klein
Graduate Research Assistant
Martha Thurlow
Director
Table 1: Tests Administered and Results Found
Please review this table for its accuracy, make any changes (if necessary),
and fill in any blank spaces.
|
State |
Test |
Grades Tested |
Subject Areas |
Is Disaggregated Info for Students with Disabilities Reported (Yes/No) |
Is this test part of the state accountability system? (Yes/No) |
|
|
AL |
|
|
|
Participation |
Performance |
|
|
Direct Assessment of Writing [CRT] |
5,7 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
High School Graduation Exam [EXIT] |
12
|
Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th ed. (SAT-10) [NRT] |
3-8 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science. Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
Alternate Assessment |
3-8, 11, 12 |
Not specified |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Table 2: Participation Information for Students with
Disabilities
Please review this table, which describes the way in which participation
data are publicly reported in your state. A dot in the box indicates information
is reported in this way. Please add a “Y” if you know of any other method of
participation reporting, and please provide us with the information that is
reported in that way (either a hard copy or a web-link).
State |
Test |
Number Tested |
Number Not Tested |
Number Exempt |
Number Excluded |
% of students tested |
% of students not tested |
% Exempt |
% Excluded |
Number and/or Percent Absent |
|
AL |
HS Graduation Exam |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SAT-10 |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAW |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternate |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blank cell = no data
Table 3: 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).
|
Test |
Allowable Accommodations |
Non-allowable Accommodations |
||
|
|
Participation |
Performance |
Participation |
Performance |
|
HS Graduation Exam |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
SAT-10 |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
DAW |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Alternate |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Appendix B
Letters to State Directors of Special Education
(Two forms depending on input from Assessment Director. Example here is if letter was verified by the Assessment Director. If no verification, letter was the same as in Appendix A.)
The National Center on Educational Outcomes is examining states’ public reports on 2003–2004 school year assessment results. We have reviewed your state’s Web site for both participation and performance data on your statewide assessments. Attached tables reflect what we believe to be the tests your state administers and the results that we have found thus far on the Web (Table 1), how participation information is reported for students with disabilities (if it is available) (Table 2), and whether information is given about students who took assessments with individual accommodations (Table 3). These tables have been verified by your state’s Director of Assessment, but if you have anything to add, please let us know.
Please review the tables and verify their accuracy. Our goal is to (a) identify all components of each state’s testing system, (b) determine whether each state reports disaggregated test results for students with disabilities, (c) describe the way participation information is presented, and (d) describe how states report results for students who took the test with accommodations or modifications.
If any data element is inaccurate, please provide us with the public document and/or website that contains the accurate information. Address your responses to Jenny Klein at the above address.
If you have any questions about our request, please call Jenny Klein at (612) 626-0658 or email: klei0321@umn.edu. If we do not hear from you by June 16, 2005 we will assume that our summaries are accurate.
Thank you for taking the time to verify our findings.
Sincerely,
Jenny Klein
Graduate Research Assistant
Martha Thurlow
Director
Table 1: Tests Administered and Results Found
Please review this table for its accuracy, make any changes (if necessary),
and fill in any blank spaces.
|
State |
Test |
Grades Tested |
Subject Areas |
Is Disaggregated Info for Students with Disabilities Reported (Yes/No) |
Is this test part of the state accountability system? (Yes/No) |
|
|
AL |
|
|
|
Participation |
Performance |
|
|
Direct Assessment of Writing (criterion-referenced) |
5,7 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
High School Graduation Exam (Exit Exam) |
12 |
Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies, Language |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
SAT-10 (norm-referenced) |
3-8 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Alternate Assessment |
3-8,11,12 |
Not specified |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
|
Table 2: Participation Information for Students with
Disabilities
Please review this table, which describes the way in which participation
data are publicly reported in your state. A dot in the box indicates information
is reported in this way. Please add a “Y” if you know of any other method of
participation reporting, and please provide us with the information that is
reported in that way (either a hard copy or a web-link).
|
State |
Test |
Number Tested |
Number Not Tested |
Number Exempt |
Number Excluded |
% of students tested |
% of students not tested |
% Exempt |
% Excluded |
Number and/or Percent Absent |
|
AL |
Direct Assessment of Writing |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HS Grad. Exam |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SAT-10 |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternate Assessment |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blank cell = No data
Table 3: 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).
|
Test |
Standard Administration |
Nonstandard Administration |
||
|
|
Participation |
Performance |
Participation |
Performance |
|
Direct Assessment of Writing |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
High School Graduation Exam |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
SAT-10 |
No |
No |
No |
No |
|
Alternate Assessment |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Appendix C
2003–2004 State Assessment Systems and Status of Disaggregated Data
State |
Assessment Component |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special Education Data |
|
Part |
Perf |
||||
|
Alabama |
Direct Assessment of Writing [CRT] |
5,7,10 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
*High School Graduation Exam [EXIT] |
11
|
Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th ed. (SAT-10) [NRT] |
3–8 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science. Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
*Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) [CRT] |
4,6,8 |
Reading (4,6,8), Mathematics (4,6) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Alaska |
*Standards Based Assessment (SBA) [CRT] |
3–9 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
*High School Graduation Qualifying Exam [EXIT] |
10 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Arizona |
Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT] |
2–9 |
Reading, Language, Math |
No |
No |
|
* AZ Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) [CRT] |
3,5,8 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* AIMS [EXIT] |
10 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Arkansas |
Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT] |
5,7,10 |
Complete Battery |
No |
No |
|
*Arkansas Benchmark Exams (including End-of-Course) [CRT] |
4,6,8, 9–12 |
Literacy [Reading & Writing] (4,6,8,11), Math (4,6,8), EOC–Algebra I (9–12), EOC-Geometry (9–12) |
No |
Yes |
|
|
California |
* Content Standards [CRT] |
2–11 |
English Language Arts, Math (2–9), Algebra I & II (8–11), Integ. Math I–III (9–11), Geometry (8–11), Soc. Studies (8), World Hist. (10), US Hist. (11), Bio./Life Sci. (9–11), Chem. (9–11), Earth Sci. (9–11), Physics (9–11), Integ./Coord. Sci. (9–11) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE/2) [NRT] |
2–11 |
Reading, Language, Math, Spelling (2–8) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* California Achievement Test, 6th ed. (CAT-6) [NRT] |
3,7 |
Reading, Language, Math, Spelling, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
|
State |
Assessment Component |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special Education Data |
||
Part |
Perf |
|||||
|
Colorado |
* CO Student Assessment Program (CSAP) [CRT] |
3–10 |
Reading, Math (5–10), Writing, Science (8) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Connecticut |
* CT Mastery Test (CMT) [CRT] |
4,6,8 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* CT Academic Performance Test (CAPT) [CRT] |
10 |
Reading, Math, Writing, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Delaware |
* DE Student Testing Program (DSTP) [SAT-9 for R,M with other criterion measures; NRT/CRT] |
3–6,8,10,11 |
Reading (3,5,8,10), Math (3,5,8,10), Writing (3,5,8,10), Science (4,6,8,11), Social Studies (4,6,8,11) |
Yes |
Yes
|
|
|
DE Student Testing Program (DSTP) [SAT-9 for R,M with other criterion measures; NRT/CRT] |
2,4,6,7,9 |
Reading (2,4,6,7,9); Math (2,4,6,7,9), Writing (4,6,7,9) |
No |
No |
||
|
Florida |
* FL Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) includes SAT-9 [NRT/CRT] |
3–10 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
No |
No |
|
|
Georgia |
End of Course Tests [CRT] |
9–12 |
English Literature and Composition (9), American Literature and Composition, Algebra, Geometry, Biology, Physical Science, U.S. History, Economics/Business/Free Enterprise |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* GA High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) [EXIT] |
11 |
English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
* Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) [CRT] |
1–8 |
Reading, English/Language Arts, Math, Science (3–8), Social Studies (3–8) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
* Middle Grades/High School Writing Assessment [CRT] |
5,8,11 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
Hawaii |
* HI Content and Performance Standards (HCPS II) State Assessment [CRT] |
3,5,8,10 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes
|
|
|
Idaho |
ID Direct Assessments (DMA/DWA) [CRT] |
4–9 |
Math (4,6,8), Writing (5,7,9) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT) [CRT] |
2–10 |
Reading/Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) [CRT] |
K–3 |
Reading |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
Illinois |
* IL Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) [CRT] |
3,4,5,7,8 |
Reading (3,5,8), Math (3,5,8), Writing (3,5,8), Science (4,7), Social Studies (4,7) |
Yes- aggregateacross tests |
Yes |
|
|
* Prairie State Achievement Exam [CRT] |
11 |
Reading, Math, Writing, Science, Social Studies |
Yes- aggregateacross tests |
Yes |
|
|
|
* Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English (IMAGE) [CRT] |
3,5,8,11 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes- aggregateacross tests |
Yes |
|
|
|
Indiana |
* IN Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP+) [NRT/CRT |
3,6,8 |
English Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* Graduation Qualifying Exam [EXIT] |
10 |
English Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
Iowa |
* ITBS/ITED [NRT] |
3–12 (only report on grades 4,8,11) |
Reading, Math, Science (8,11) |
Yes
|
Yes |
|
|
Kansas |
* KS Assessment System [CRT]
|
4–8,10,11 |
Reading (5,8,11), Math (4,7,10), Science (4,7,10), Social Studies (6,8,11) |
Yes |
Yes
|
|
|
Kentucky |
* Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5) [NRT] |
3,6,9 |
Reading, Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* KY Core Content Test [CRT] |
4,5,7,8, 10–12 |
Reading (4,7,10), Math (5,8,11), Writing (4,7,12), Science (4,7,11), Social Studies (5,8,11), Arts & Humanities (5,8,11), Practical Living & Vocational Studies (5,8,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
|
Louisiana |
* LA Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21) [CRT] |
4,8 |
English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* Graduation Exit Exam (GEE-21) [EXIT] |
10, 11 |
Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa Tests of Educational Development [NRT] |
3,5,6,7,9 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Maine |
* Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) [CRT] |
4,8,11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Maryland |
* Maryland School Assessment (MSA) [CRT] |
3,5,8,10 |
Reading (3,5,8,10), Math (3,5,8,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* High School Assessment [CRT] |
9–12 |
English I, Biology, Government, Algebra |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Massachusetts |
* MA Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) [CRT] |
3–8,10 |
Reading (3), English Language Arts (4,7,10), Math (4,6,8,10), Science/Technology (5,8) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Michigan |
* MI Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) [CRT] |
4,5,7,8
|
Reading (4,7), Math (4,8), Writing (4,7), Science (5,8), Social Studies (5,8), Listening (4,7) |
Yes
|
Yes
|
|
|
Minnesota |
* MN Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) [CRT] |
3,5,7,10,11 |
Reading (3,5,7,10), Math (3,5,7,11), Writing (5,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Basic Skills Test [EXIT] |
8,10 |
Reading (8), Math (8), Writing (10) |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Mississippi |
* MS Curriculum Test (MCT) [CRT] |
2–8 |
Reading, Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5) [NRT] |
6 |
Reading, Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Writing Assessment [CRT] |
4,7 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Functional Literacy Exam (FLE) [EXIT] For most students, only math is required for graduation. |
11 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* Subject Area [CRT] |
9–12 |
Algebra I, U.S. History, Biology, English II |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Missouri |
* MO Assessment Program (MAP) (Terra Nova survey) [NRT/CRT] |
3,4,7,8,10,11 |
Communication Arts (3,7,11), Math (4,8,10), Science (optional) (3,7,10), Social Studies (optional) (4,8,11) |
Yes |
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 |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Nebraska |
* Nebraska Statewide Writing Assessment [CRT] |
4,8,11 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* Assessment of State Math Standards [CRT] |
4,8,11 |
Math |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Nevada |
* Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT] |
4,7,10 |
Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* Nevada Criterion Referenced Exam [CRT] |
3,5,8 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* NV High School Proficiency Exam [EXIT] |
11–12 |
Reading, Math, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* NV Direct Writing Assessment [CRT] |
4,8,11,12 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
New Hampshire |
* NH Educational Improvement and Assessment Program (NHEIAP) [CRT] |
3,6,10 |
English Language Arts, Math, Science (6,10), Social Studies (6,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
New Jersey |
* NJ Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ-ASK) [CRT] |
4 |
Language Arts Literacy, Math, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) [CRT] |
8 |
Language Arts Literacy, Math, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) [EXIT] |
11 |
Language Arts Literacy, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
New Mexico |
* NM Achievement Assessment Program (NMAAP) (CTBS/5 & other criterion measures) [NRT/CRT] |
4,8 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* NM High School Standards Assessment [EXIT] |
10 |
Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
New York |
* Regents Comprehensive Exams [EXIT] |
9–12 |
English, Foreign Languages, Math, History/Social Studies, Science |
Yes |
Yes
|
|
|
* Regents Competency Test [EXIT] |
9–12 |
Reading, Math, Science, Writing, Global Studies, U.S. History & Government |
Yes |
Yes
|
||
|
* NY State Assessment Program [CRT] |
4,8 |
English/Language Arts, Math, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
North Carolina |
* End of Grade [CRT] |
3–8, 10 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* End of Course [CRT] |
9–12 |
Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Economics, English I, Physical Science, History, Algebra I & II, Geometry |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* Grade 3 Pretest [CRT] |
3 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
Writing Assessment [CRT] |
4,7,10 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* Computer Skills [CRT] |
8 |
Computer |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* Competency Test [EXIT] |
9 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
*High School Comprehensive Test [CRT] |
10 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
North Dakota
|
* North Dakota State Assessment (NDSA) [NRT/CRT] |
4,8,12 |
Reading/Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Ohio |
* Reading Achievement Test [CRT] |
3 |
Reading |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
* OH Proficiency Tests [CRT] |
4,6,10 |
Reading, Math, Writing, Science, Citizenship |
Yes |
Yes |
||
|
* 9th Grade Proficiency Test [EXIT]1 |
9 |
Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Citizenship |
No |
Yes |
||
State |
Assessment Component |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special Education Data |
|
Part |
Perf |
||||
|
Oklahoma
|
* Core Curriculum Tests [CRT] |
5,8 |
Reading, Math, Writing, Science, History, Geography, Arts |
Yes |
Yes
|
|
* Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT] |
3 |
Reading, Math, Language, Spelling, Listening |
Yes |
No |
|
|
* High School End-of-Instruction Tests [CRT] |
9–11 |
English II, U.S. History, Algebra I, Biology |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Oregon |
* OR Statewide Assessment [CRT]
|
3,5,8,10
|
Reading/Literature, Math, Math Problem Solving (5,8,10), Writing, Science (8,10) |
No (district level only) |
No (district level only) |
|
Pennsylvania |
* PA System of School Assessment (PSSA) [CRT] |
3,5,6,8,9,11 |
Reading (3,5,8,11), Math (3,5,8,11), Writing (6,9,11) |
No (district level only) |
Yes |
|
Rhode Island
|
* New Standards Reference Examinations [CRT] |
4,8,10 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
|
RI State Writing Assessment [CRT] |
3,7,11 |
Writing |
No |
No |
|
|
RI Health Education Assessment [CRT] |
9 |
Health |
No |
No |
|
|
South Carolina |
* Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) [CRT] |
3–8 |
English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
* High School Exit Exam [EXIT] |
10 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
South Dakota
|
*Dakota STEP Test [NRT/CRT] |
3–8, 11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Stanford Writing Assessment [NRT] |
5,9 |
Writing |
No |
No |
|
|
Tennessee |
* Achievement Test [NRT] |
3–8 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Writing Test [CRT] |
4,7,11 |
Writing |
No |
No |
|
|
Gateway Testing Initiative [CRT] |
9–12 |
Algebra I, Biology, English II |
No |
No |
|
|
Texas |
* Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) [CRT] |
3–9
|
Reading, Math, Writing (4,7), Science (5), Social Studies (8); Spanish version administered in grades 3–6. |
Yes |
Yes |
|
* Exit Level TAKS [EXIT] |
10,11 |
English/Language Arts (10,11), Math (10,11), Science (10,11), Social Studies (10,11) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Reading Proficiency Tests in English [CRT] |
3–12 |
English Reading Proficiency |
Yes |
Yes |
|
State |
Assessment Component |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special Education Data |
|
Part |
Perf |
||||
|
Utah |
Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT] |
3,5,8,11 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
No |
No |
|
Core Criterion-Referenced Tests [CRT] |
1–11 |
Reading, Math (1–10), Writing (6,9) |
Yes2 |
Yes2 |
|
|
Direct Writing Assessment [NRT] |
6,9 |
Writing |
No |
No |
|
|
Vermont |
* VT Comprehensive Assessment System [CRT] |
2,4,5,8– 11 |
Reading (2), English/ Language Arts (4,8,10), Math (4,8,10), Science (5,9,11) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Virginia |
* Standards of Learning (SOL) [CRT] |
3,5,8 |
English (3), English: Reading/Literature and Research (5,8), English: Writing (5,8), Math, History, Science, Computer Technology (5, 8) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
* Standards of Learning—End of Course [EXIT]3
|
9–12 (may be taken at an earlier grade) |
English, Math (Algebra I, II, & Geometry), History/Social Studies (World History I & II, Geography, U.S. History), Science (Earth, Biology, Chemistry) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Washington |
* WA Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) [CRT] |
4,7,8,10 |
Reading (4,7,10), Math (4,7,10), Writing (4,7,10), Science (8,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT] |
3,6,9 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
West Virginia |
* West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST) [CRT] |
3–8 and 10 |
Reading/Language, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
WV Writing Assessment [CRT] |
4,7,10 |
Writing |
No |
No |
|
|
Wisconsin |
* WI Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) [CRT] |
4,8,10 |
Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
|
WI Reading Comprehension Test (WRCT) [CRT] |
|||||