NCEO Logo
Bookmark and Share

2001 State Special Education Outcomes:
A Report on State Activities at the Beginning of a New Decade

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by:

Sandra Thompson • Martha L. Thurlow

June 2001


Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. 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/2001StateReport.html


Table of Contents


The Mission of the National Center on Educational Outcomes

NCEO is a collaborative effort of the University of Minnesota, theNational Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). NCEO provides national leadership in assisting state and local education agencies in their development of policies and practices that encourage and support the participation of students with disabilities in accountability systems and data collection efforts.

 NCEO focuses its efforts in the following areas:

  • Research on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in state and national assessments and other educational reform efforts.

  • Dissemination and Technical Assistance through publications, presentations, technical assistance, and other networking activities.

  • Collaboration and Leadership to build on the expertise of others and to develop leaders who can conduct needed research and provide additional technical assistance.

The Center is supported primarily through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G000001) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on limited English proficient students, is provided by other federal and state agencies. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration in the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. Opinions or points of view expressed within this document do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Education or the Offices within it.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.


Acknowledgments

A comprehensive report that contains information from all 50 states is only possible through the collective efforts of every state director and staff. Thanks to the thoughtful responses of the directors and their designees who completed this survey, we are able to share trends, accomplishments, and frustrations. We appreciate the willingness of many of the respondents to share their progress honestly, knowing that we are all learning as we go and that progress is sometimes painfully slow and tedious. The purpose of this report is not to check for compliance with federal mandates nor to point fingers at states that have had a difficult time moving their systems forward; it is simply to capture where states are now and to provide information to help states view their own progress in light of other states.

State agency personnel are often barraged by requests for information. With the value of each director’s time in mind, we designed a survey that would capture information not requested by other groups, a survey that could be completed online in a minimal amount of time. We appreciate the time taken by respondents to talk to people outside of special education, and we hope that this collaborative effort increased awareness within and across state programs and departments.

For their support, special thanks go to:

  • David Malouf and Lou Danielson, of the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education;

  • Eileen Ahearn, of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education; and

  • Michael Moore, online survey designer and communications director for the National Center on Educational Outcomes.

2001 State Special Education Outcomes was prepared by Sandra Thompson and Martha Thurlow, with support from research assistant Chris Boys.


State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA
Mabrey Whetstone
KENTUCKY
Mike Armstrong
NORTH CAROLINA
Lowell Harris
WISCONSIN
Stephanie Petska
ALASKA
Greg Maloney 
LOUISIANA
Virginia Beridon
NORTH DAKOTA
Robert Rutten
WYOMING
Rebecca Walk
ARIZONA
Lynn Busenbark
MAINE
David Stockford
OHIO
John Herner
AMERICAN SAMOA
Jane French 
ARKANSAS
Marcia Harding
MARYLAND
Carol Ann Baglin
OKLAHOMA
Darla Griffin
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Angelita Felix
CALIFORNIA
Alice Parker 
MASSACHUSETTS
Marcia Mittnacht
OREGON
Steve Johnson
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Lorrie Sebestyen (acting)
COLORADO
Lorrie Harkness
MICHIGAN
Jacquelyn Thompson
PENNSYLVANIA
Fran Warkowski
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ann Gay 
CONNECTICUT
George Dowaliby 
MINNESOTA
Norena Hale
RHODE ISLAND
Thomas Dipaola
GUAM
Vince Leon Guerrero
DELAWARE
Martha Brooks
MISSISSIPPI
Ed Kelly
SOUTH CAROLINA
Susan Durant
MARIANA ISLANDS
Suzanne Lizama (acting)
FLORIDA
Shan Goff
MISSOURI
Melodie Friedebach
SOUTH DAKOTA
Deborah Barnett      
MARSHALL ISLANDS
Kanchi Hosia
GEORGIA
Philip Pickens
MONTANA
Robert Runkel
TENNESSEE
Joseph Fisher
MICRONESIA
Makir Keller
HAWAII
Debra Farmer
NEBRASKA
Gary Sherman
TEXAS
Eugene Lenz
PALAU
Evans Imetengel
IDAHO
Jana Jones
NEVADA
Gloria Dopf
UTAH
Mae Taylor
PUERTO RICO
Maria Teresa Morales 
ILLINOIS
Gordon Riffel
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Debra Grabill

VERMONT
Dennis Kane

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Belinda West-O’Neal 
INDIANA
Robert Marra
NEW JERSEY
Barbara Gantwerk
VIRGINIA
Doug Cox
IOWA
Brenda Oas
NEW MEXICO
Robert Pasternack
WASHINGTON
Douglas Gill
KANSAS
Alexa Pochowski
NEW YORK
Lawrence Gloeckler
WEST VIRGINIA
Dee Bodkins

These were the state directors of special education in April 2001 when the survey was conducted.


Executive Summary

This report summarizes the eighth survey of state directors of special education by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, American Samoa, and Palau. The purpose of this report is to capture the state of the nation as states build the participation and performance of students with disabilities in state and district standards, assessments, and accountability systems, and to provide information to help states view their own progress

State directors report increased participation rates of students with disabilities in state assessments, and in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first year of alternate assessment implementation has been challenging, but most states now have systems in place and are grappling with how to include the results in their accountability systems in ways that show the progress of every student toward state and district standards.

Among the more striking findings are the following:

  • More states listed positive consequences of inclusive standards, assessments, and accountability than listed negative consequences.

  • More than half of the states reported increases in participation rates.

  • In two-thirds of the states, directors reported stable or increased performance levels of students with disabilities on state tests.

  • Nearly 60% of states keep track of the use of accommodations, and half of these reported increased use of accommodations.

  • Most states are using a portfolio or body of evidence approach for their alternate assessments.

  • While students may use accommodations whether or not they are approved, nearly half of the states do not report the scores of students who use non-approved accommodations.

  • Twenty-five states include alternate assessment participants in all components of their accountability systems.

A positive theme throughout this report is that the benefits of inclusive assessment and accountability systems are beginning to outweigh the challenges, and many states are taking positive approaches as they face the challenges ahead.


Overview of 2001 Survey

This report marks the eighth time over the past ten years that the National Center on Educational Outcomes has collected information from state directors of special education about the participation of students with disabilities in education reform. Reform efforts continue to evolve at a rapid pace. The purpose of this report is to capture the progress of states as they move toward assessment and accountability systems that include every student.

It is clear from the results of this survey that states are working hard to increase accountability for all students. As described in many NCEO publications and elsewhere, there are several important reasons why all students need to be included in assessment and accountability systems—to:

  • promote high expectations
  • provide an accurate picture of education
  • allow all students to benefit from reforms
  • enable accurate comparisons to be made
  • avoid unintended consequences of exclusion
  • meet legal requirements

The 2001 Special Education Outcomes Survey focuses on the implications of educational reform within the context of the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

•  Consequences of Inclusive Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

•  Assessment Participation and Performance

•  Assessment Accommodations

•  Alternate Assessments

•  Reporting

•  Accountability

•  Current Issues

•  Emerging Issues

Participants in the 2001 survey included state directors of special education from all 50 states and 11 federal jurisdictions that abide by the provisions of IDEA (referred to in this report as “unique states”). Responses to the survey were gathered online and via fax. To view the survey instrument, go to http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/NCEOSurveys/SpEdDirectors_Survey.htm. Some state directors designated other state officials to complete the survey, and multiple respondents, including state assessment and accountability personnel, completed some surveys.

Once compiled, drafts of tables were sent to state directors for verification. Overall, responses were obtained from all 50 states and from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, American Samoa, and Palau.

As you will read in this report, state directors are reporting increased participation rates of students with disabilities in state assessments, and in many cases, improvement in performance as well. This first year of alternate assessment implementation has been challenging, but most states now have their systems in place and are grappling with how to include the results in their accountability systems in ways that show the progress of every student toward state and district standards. A positive theme throughout this report is that the benefits of inclusive assessment and accountability systems are beginning to outweigh the barriers, and many states are taking positive approaches as they face the challenges ahead.

Eleven Unique States
American Samoa
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Department of Defense
District of Columbia
Guam
Mariana Islands
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Palau
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin Islands

The Bottom Line: Consequences of Inclusive Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

“So, how’s it going there then?” – a phrase often heard in the Midwest – reflects the importance of the bottom line. The “bottom line” for inclusive assessment and accountability is whether the time and effort (the costs) are worth the benefits. We asked respondents to think about inclusive standards, assessment, and accountability as a whole, and to evaluate the bottom line.

The states gave very positive responses when asked to describe consequences that had been observed or heard about as a result of the participation of students with disabilities in state standards, assessments, and accountability systems. As one director stated, “The benefits seem to outweigh the negative consequences.” Figure 1 lists positive consequences identified by 40 states. The unique states did not list any consequences.

 

Figure 1. Positive Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

Figure 1. Positive Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

In addition to those listed in Figure 1, at least two states identified each of these positive consequences:

  • Accommodations for students receiving special education services have allowed these students to pursue a regular high school diploma.

  • Higher level of awareness of parents about standards and assessments has emerged, as well as increased expectations for students.

  • Increased use of accommodations, including assistive technology, has
    occurred.

  • Teacher attention to student achievement of skills included on assessments has grown.

  • District awareness of educational issues facing students with disabilities has increased.

  • State and district test scores did not drop significantly with the inclusion of students with disabilities.

  • Greater effort is being made to include special education personnel in staff development that addresses instruction toward standards.

States also recognize that there have been some challenges and negative consequences as students with disabilities are included in standards, assessments, and accountability systems. Figure 2 lists the primary negative consequences described by state directors in 30 states.

Figure 2. Negative Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Systems

Figure 2. Negative Consequences of the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability Systems

Additional negative consequences, each identified by at least two states include:

  • Teachers, administrators, and parents are frustrated because they do not fully understand the system.

  • Some students with IEPs may always perform at the “unsatisfactory” level; other measures will be needed to determine student growth.

  • There are still students not being adequately addressed.

  • Misleading reports of student progress.


Assessment Participation and Performance

Both the participation of students with disabilities in assessments and their performance are important indicators of the progress states are making. State by state responses on changes in participation and performance are provided in Appendix A.

Participation

Over half of the regular states reported an increase in the test participation rates of students with disabilities on their state assessments (see Figure 3). Several directors attribute this increase to alternate assessment participation by students who have been excluded in the past. An additional 26% of the directors said that the test participation rates had remained about the same, and only one state reported a decrease in participation rates. The remaining six states were not able to make a comparison across years. Four of these states said that their assessment system was so new that comparison data were not yet available. In addition, one unique state reported an increase in participation rates and two reported that this information is not yet available.

Figure 3. Change in Participation Levels of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments

Figure 3. Change in Participation Levels of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments


All students are included in state assessments in Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont (see Figure 4). The remaining states allow assessment exclusion for a variety of reasons, including parent refusal, medically fragile, emotional distress, homebound, hospitalized, limited English proficient, and absent on test days (see Table 1).


Table 1. Reasons Allwed by State Policy for Students to be Excused from Assessment Participation

State

Parent Refusal

Medically Fragile

Emotional Distress

Homebound

Hospitalized

 Limited English Proficient

Absent on Test Days

Other

Alabama

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Arizona

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

California

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colorado

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

X

Georgia

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawaii

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Idaho

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

X

Iowa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Indiana

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Kansas

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Louisiana

 

X

 

 

X

X

X

 

Maine

X

X

X

 

X

 

 

 

Maryland

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

X

Massachusetts

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

Michigan

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Minnesota

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

 

Mississippi

X

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Missouri

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Nevada

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

New Hampshire

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

New York

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

North Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

North Dakota

X

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

Ohio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

X

X

 

Oregon

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

South Carolina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

South Dakota

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Tennessee

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Utah

 

X

X

X

X

X

X

 

Vermont

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

 

Washington

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia

 

 

 

X

X

X

 

 

Wisconsin

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wyoming

 

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

Unique States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American Samoa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 X

Bureau of Indian Affairs

 X

 

 

 

 

 

 X

 X

Department of Defense*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District of Columbia*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guam*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mariana Islands*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marshall Islands*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Micronesia*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Palau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

Puerto Rico*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Virgin Islands*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

12

9

6

6

8

17

10

15

*No Response

 

Figure 4. States with No Students Excused from Assessment Participation

Figure 4 U.S. Map 

The most frequent reasons allowed for exclusion are having limited English proficiency and parent refusal. “Other” includes seven states that allow exclusion for any reason deemed appropriate by a student’s IEP team. One director commented that “in theory” no one is excused, but “in reality” there are students who are absent and do not make up the tests.

 

Performance

Test performance levels of students with disabilities on state assessments have increased in over one fourth of the regular states (see Figure 5). One state director commented that, using data over time, the state found that students with IEPs showed improvement in all content areas assessed. Another director was surprised to find that in third grade testing, students with disabilities performed as well or better than general education students in some jurisdictions. About one third of the state directors report stable performance levels. Four states reported that the performance level of students with disabilities on state assessments has decreased, and two of these states attribute the change to greater participation of lower performing students. Fourteen states are not able to compare performance levels across years, either because data are available for only one year, or because performance data of students with disabilities have not yet been disaggregated. None of the unique states is able to report performance trends.

Figure 5. Change in Performance Levels of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments

Figure 5. Change in Performance Levels of Students with Disabilities on State Assessments 


Assessment Accommodations

Accommodations provide students access to assessments. As more students are included in assessments, states often become interested in identifying how many students are using accommodations. State by state responses to questions about changes in use of accommodations, students eligible for accommodations, and data collection procedures are provided in Appendix B.

 

Information on Use

Nearly sixty percent of the regular states keep track of the use of accommodations during state assessments—about half of these report an increase in use and the other half report stable use (see Figure 6). Two directors attribute growth in use to increased awareness and understanding by parents and educators. One unique state reported an increase, also due to increased awareness; two unique states do not keep track of accommodations use.

Figure 6. Change in Accommodations Use by Students with Disabilities on State Assessments

Figure 6. Change in Accommodations Use by Students with Disabilities on State Assessments 

 

Eligible Students

There are 14 states in which assessment accommodations are available for any student with a need regardless of whether the student has an IEP or a 504 plan (see Figure 7). For example, Colorado provides assessment accommodations for any child as long as the accommodations are provided during instruction at least three months prior to the assessment. Some states, however, may allow only a subset of accommodations for students without disabilities.

All states, including the three unique states that responded to the survey, reported that students receiving special education services are eligible for assessment accommodations. All but two states also reported that students with 504 Accommodation Plans are eligible for assessment accommodations.

Figure 7. States with Assessment Accommodations Available for All Students

Figure 7. States with Assessment Accommodations Available for All Students 

 

Data Collection Procedures

Over two thirds of regular states (35 states) reported that accommodations are recorded either on the test itself or on a form completed at the time of testing. Some states document the type of accommodation a student uses. For example, Massachusetts has its most commonly used accommodations number-coded on the test form with a code for “other.” Other states (usually those using norm-referenced tests) record whether an accommodation is considered standard or non-standard by the test publisher, but do not record the specific accommodation used.

Six states code accommodation use directly from a student’s IEP to the test form. For example, in Delaware a paper form is completed at a student’s IEP meeting that indicates all of the accommodations the student will have when tested. Data from this form are then entered electronically into the state database and used to place special test orders (e.g., large print), and to make sure students receive the accommodations they need on test day (e.g., extended time). None of the respondents from the unique states record test accommodation use.


Alternate Assessments

Beginning in 1997, NCEO maintained an online alternate assessment survey. States were able to check at any time what other states were doing and were able to frequently update their own information. As states moved into the July 1, 2000 implementation phase, NCEO phased out its ongoing alternate assessment survey, and moved questions on alternate assessment into this survey of states. The information in this report is the third written summary of the status of states as they move from initial implementation to the use of alternate assessment results. State by state information is provided in Appendix C.

While NCEO did not ask directly whether states had alternate assessments, the composite information on stakeholders, standards assessed, performance measures and descriptors, and scoring procedures suggest that nearly all states are working on some aspect of their alternate assessments.

 

Alternate Assessment Stakeholders

Every state involved some type of stakeholder group in the development of their alternate assessments. All stakeholder groups included state and local special education personnel (see Table 2). In addition, most states included state and local assessment directors and coordinators, local school administrators, related service personnel, and general educators. Nearly all states also included parents and advocates, and a few included students and adults with disabilities. Other stakeholders included university personnel, test developers, and a variety of additional technical assistance providers.

Table 2. Stakeholders Involved in the Development of State Alternate Assessments

 

Regular States

Unique States*

State special education personnel

50

1

Local special educators

50

1

State assessment personnel

49

1

Parents

44

0

Local school administrators

44

0

Local related service personnel

41

0

Local assessment coordinators

39

1

Advocates

34

0

Local general educators

31

0

Adults with disabilities

8

0

Students

6

0

Other

8

3

*3 unique states responded

Standards Assessed

Nearly all state alternate assessments assess the same standards as general assessments either by expanding state standards, linking a set of functional skills back to standards, or assessing standards plus an additional set of functional skills. Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Ohio assess functional skills only, with no link to state standards. Iowa links the alternate assessment to local standards. Texas and Wisconsin allow IEP teams to determine what their individualized alternate assessments will assess. Of the unique state respondents, American Samoa links functional skills to standards, while Palau and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are uncertain, either because no decision has been made or an alternate assessment has not been administered.

Table 3 shows how the alignment of alternate assessments with standards has evolved since 1999. Several states that in 1999 indicated they were developing alternate assessments based on a special education curriculum no longer give that response. Instead, they have moved to responses indicating some connection between the alternate assessment and state standards.

Table 3. Standards Addressed by Alternate Assessments: Change Over Time

Year

State Standards (May be Expanded)

Functional Skills Linked Back to State Standards

State Standards Plus FunctionalSkills

Functional Skills Only, No Link to State Standards

Other or Uncertain

1999*

19 (38%)

---

1 (  2%)

16 (32%)

24 (48%)

2000**

28 (56%)

3 (  6%)

7 (14%)

9 (18%)

3 (  6%)

2001***

19 (38%)

15 (30%)

9 (18%)

4 (  8%)

3 (  6%)

Note: Entries are number and percentage of states.
*Data are from Thompson, S., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Callender, S. (1999). Status of the states in the development of alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
** Data are from Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report 35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
*** All numbers and percentages are based on 50 states.


Alternate Assessment Approach

State approaches to collecting alternate assessment data continue to reflect a variety of methods (see Table 4). Approaches have evolved as alternate assessments have been piloted and refined. In 2001, nearly half of the states indicated that they use some type of portfolio or body of evidence, nine states have selected a checklist or rating scale approach, and three states use an analysis of IEP goals. In addition, some states have selected specific performance-based assessments, a combination of approaches, or they do not use any particular approach, allowing IEP teams to determine how they will collect data on individual students. Among the respondents from unique states, American Samoa uses a checklist, while Palau and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are uncertain, either because no decision has been made or an alternate assessment has not been administered.

Table 4. Alternate Assessment Approaches in 2000 and 2001

Year

Portfolio/Body of Evidence

Checklist

IEP Analysis

Other

State Has Not Decided

2000*

28 (56%)

 4 (  8%)

5 (10%)

  6 (12%)

7 (14%)

2001**

24 (48%)

9 (18%)

3 (  6%)

12 (24%)

2 (  4%)

Note:  Entries are number and percentage of states.
* Data are from Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report 35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
** All numbers and percentages are based on 50 states.

Performance Measures

States have developed a variety of performance measures to use in reporting the performance of alternate assessment participants as a group. Some are measures of student performance, while others are measures of system performance (see Figure 8). State responses here do not tell us whether they use a single performance descriptor or “score” that combines many measures holistically, or whether they score each dimension and then combine all of the scores to determine a student’s level of performance.

Figure 8. Alternate Assessment Student and System Performance Measures

 

Figure 8. Alternate Assessment System Performance Measures

*Unique states are not reflected in this figure

All states use some measure of student performance for their alternate assessments, with about 80% measuring level of skill or competence. Nearly half of the states measure degree of progress in addition to or instead of skill/competence. Additional measures used by several states include level of independence and ability to generalize. “Other” includes three states that allow IEP teams to determine performance measures. American Samoa, a unique state, measures skill and level of independence.

About 20 states measure levels of staff support, variety of instructional settings, and appropriateness (defined as age appropriate and challenging for students). Twelve states measure participation in general education settings, and nine states measure parent satisfaction. Eight states do not measure system performance as part of their alternate assessment.

 

Performance Descriptors

About a third of the states have chosen the same performance descriptors for their alternate assessment as for the general assessment; more have different performance indicators for their alternate and general assessments (see Figure 9). Three states use the same performance descriptors plus different ones. Wisconsin scores all alternate assessment participants as “prerequisite.” Nine states and all three unique state respondents have not yet decided on performance descriptors.

Figure 9. Alternate Assessment Performance Descriptors

Figure 9. Alternate Assessment Performance Descriptors 

Scoring Alternate Assessments

Most states have teachers scoring the alternate assessments of their own students (see Figure 10). Teachers from other districts, sometimes in collaboration or with direction from test companies, score alternate assessments in about a quarter of the states. Relatively few states have other teachers from a student’s district or the state agency score alternate assessments. A variety of other scorers (e.g., IEP teams) are used in 10 states. Six states and all three unique state respondents have not decided how they will score their alternate assessments.

Figure 10. Alternate Assessment Scorers

Figure 10. Alternate Assessment Scorers


Reporting

States indicated whether they report the assessment scores of students who take tests in various ways—with approved accommodations, non-approved accommodations (sometimes called modifications or non-standard administrations), alternate assessments, and out-of-level tests—and whether students who were not assessed are included in reports (see Table 5). State by state responses are provided in Appendix D.

Table 5. Reporting Alternatives

  Score Reported Score Not Reported Other Not Decided
  RegularStates UniqueStates RegularStates UniqueStates RegularStates UniqueStates RegularStates UniqueStates
Approved Accommodations 49
(98%)
2 0 0 0 0 1
( 2%)
1
Non-approved Accommodations 27
(54%)
2   7
(14%)
0 14
(28%)
0 2
( 4%)
1
Alternate Assessments 27
(54%)
1 3
( 6%)
0 4
( 8%)
0 16
(32%)
2
Out-of-Level Tests 13
(26%)
1 2
( 4%)
0 33*
(66%)
1 2
( 4%)
1
Not Tested 8**
(16%)
0 28
(56%)
2 9***
(18%)
0 5
(10%)
1

*These states do not administer out-of-level tests
** Untested students given score of “1” or “0”
*** All students are tested

Almost all states report students using approved accommodations, but just over half report the scores of students who use non-approved accommodations. About the same number of states report scores of alternate assessment participants; however, about one third of states have not yet made a decision about how to report these scores. Of the 17 states that use out-of-level tests, 13 report the scores of students who take tests designed for students at a lower grade level. Some states give a score of “1” or “0” to students who are not tested (e.g., students who are absent on test days are counted and given the lowest possible score). Of the unique state respondents, Palau reported that they are still working on reporting decisions, American Samoa reports scores in most areas, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs reports scores on BIA funded schools in a variety of formats.

Most states aggregate the scores of assessment participants using accommodations they view as not changing the test (i.e., approved accommodations) with those of all other assessment participants (see Table 6). Only half of the states that report the scores of students using non-approved accommodations aggregate those scores; other states report scores of these students separately or at the lowest score level. Of the states that have scoring systems in place for alternate assessments, most report scores separately from those of general assessment participants. States reporting scores of out-of-level test participants are split in their decisions to aggregate or report scores separately. Unique states show reporting decisions similar to those of other states.

Table 6. How Scores are Reported

  Score Aggregated with All Separate Score Report Given Lowest Score and Aggregated Given Score of Zero and Aggregated
Regular States Unique States Regular States Unique States Regular States Unique States Regular States Unique States
Approved Accommodations
(n = 49)
 47
(96%)
1  2
( 4%)
1 0 0 0 0
Non-approved Accommodations
(n = 27)
 13
(48%)
1 12
(44%)
1  2
( 7%)
0  1
( 4%)
0
Alternate Assessments
(n = 27)
 10
(37%)
0  20
(74%)
1 0 0 0 0
Out-of-Level Tests
(n = 13)
 8
(62%)
1  6
(46%)
0 1
( 8%)
0 0 0

 


Accountability

Nearly all states have accountability systems that include assessment performance. According to state directors, between one third and two thirds of the states also include dropout rates, attendance, suspension rates, and graduation rates (see Appendix E). While states may include students with disabilities who participate in general assessments (with accommodations as needed), they do not necessarily include them in other components (for example, alternate assessment participants are less likely to be included in measures of graduation rates than are other students with disabilities). In 25 states, all students with disabilities—including alternate assessment participants—are included in all components of the accountability system (see Figure 11).

Figure 11. States in Which All Students with Disabilities are Included in All Components of the Accountability System

Figure 11. States in Which All Students with Disabilities are Included in All Components of the Accountability System 

Assessment performance of alternate assessment participants is included as a component of the accountability systems in just over half of the states (58%). Fifteen states have not made a decision about how to include alternate assessment participants in their accountability systems (see Table 7).

Table 7. Components of State Accountability Systems

State

 Total Number of Components

Number that Include Students with Disabilities

Number that Include Alternate Assessment Participants

Alabama

1

1

1

Alaska

4

4

1

Arizona

2

2

2

Arkansas

5

5

5

California

3

Undecided

Undecided

Colorado

5

5

5

Connecticut

4

4

4

Delaware

1

1

1

Florida

5

5

4

Georgia

2

Undecided

Undecided

Hawaii

5

5

5

Idaho

5

4

4

Illinois

3

3

Undecided

Indiana

3

3

Undecided

Iowa

3

4

4

Kansas

5

5

5

Kentucky

4

4

4

Louisiana

4

4

2

Maine

1

1

1

Maryland

5

5

1

Massachusetts

1

2

Undecided

Michigan

1

1

1

Minnesota

4

4

4

Mississippi

1

1

1

Missouri

4

4

Undecided

Montana

4

Undecided

Undecided

North Carolina

3

3

2

North Dakota

4

1

Undecided

Nebraska

5

5

5

Nevada

5

5

5

New Hampshire

1

1

1

New Jersey

5

5

5

New Mexico

4

4

4

New York

2

2

Undecided

Ohio

5

5

Undecided

Oklahoma

Undecided

Undecided

Undecided

Oregon

4

4

4

Pennsylvania

2

2

Undecided

Rhode Island

1

1

1

South Carolina

5

1

1

South Dakota

Undecided

Undecided

Undecided

Tennessee

1

1

1

Texas

5

5

5

Utah

1

1

1

Virginia

1

1

1

Vermont

2

2

2

Washington

Undecided

Undecided

Undecided

West Virginia

4

4

3

Wisconsin

5

4

4

Wyoming

Undecided

Undecided

Undecided


Unique States

American Samoa

Undecided

Undecided

Undecided

Bureau of Indian Affairs

5

5

Undecided

Department of Defense*

 

 

 

District of Columbia*

 

 

 

Guam*

 

 

 

Mariana Islands*

 

 

 

Marshall Islands*

 

 

 

Micronesia*

 

 

 

Palau

Undecided

Undecided

Undecided

Puerto Rico*

 

 

 

U.S. Virgin Islands*

 

 

 

Bold states include all students with disabilities in all components of a state’s accountability system.
* No Response


Current Issues

As students with disabilities are included in assessment and accountability systems, a variety of issues emerge. Some of these have been recorded in past reports (such as out-of-level testing) while others are new (such as assessing students with disabilities who have limited English proficiency). State by state responses on the issues are provided in Appendix F.

Out-of-level

The number of states using out-of-level tests as an assessment participation option has increased again (see Table 8). Only one of the five states that used out-of-level testing in 1997 no longer allows it (Kansas). Similarly, just one of the ten states that used out-of-level testing in 1999 no longer allows it (Montana). None of the unique states reported using out-of-level testing.

Table 8. States Using Out-Of-Level Tests – Change from 1997 to 2001

1997* 1999** 2001
1. Alabama
2. Connecticut
3. Georgia
4. Kansas
5. Louisiana
1. Arizona
2. California
3. Connecticut
4. Georgia
5. Louisiana
6. Mississippi
7. Montana
8. South Carolina
9. Vermont
10. West Virginia
1. Alabama
2. Arizona
3. California
4. Connecticut
5. Delaware
6. Georgia
7. Hawaii
8. Iowa
9. Louisiana
10. Mississippi
11. North Dakota
12. Oregon
13. South Carolina
14. Texas
15. Utah
16. Vermont
17. West Virginia

*Data are from Thurlow, M., Seyfarth, A., Scott, & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). State assessment policies on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis Report 29). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
**Data are from Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C. Scott, D, & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update. (Synthesis Report 33). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.


LEP Students with Disabilities

There are increasing numbers of students who are at risk in our educational system primarily because they have not yet gained proficiency in the English language, and a certain percentage of these students can be expected to experience disabilities and receive special education services. Approximately one-third of the states disaggregate either or both participation and performance data for limited English proficient students with disabilities (see Table 9). While most states do not disaggregate data for these students, several states indicated that they could if needed, or that they will be able to do so in the future.

Table 9. States that Disaggregate Assessment Data for LEP Students with Disabilities

Participation Data Only

Performance Data Only

Participation and Performance Data

 No Disaggregation

Arizona
Connecticut
Georgia
Nevada

Montana
New Hampshire
Utah
Virginia

California
Colorado
Florida
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Maine
New Jersey
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont

Alaska
Alabama
Arkansas
Delaware
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota

Missouri
North Carolina
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming

4 states (8%) 4 states (8%) 10 states (20%) 26 states (52%)

Unique States

 

 

Palau

American Samoa
Bureau of Indian Affairs

Note: No information or no response from Hawaii, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Washington, Department of Defense, District of Columbia, Guam, Mariana Islands, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands.

Diploma Options

The diploma options that are available to students with disabilities continues to be an issue with which states are struggling, especially as more and more states initiate high stakes testing. Forty-two states offer a state level diploma for successful school completion (see Table 10), whereas approximately 25 states offer a regular diploma to alternate assessment participants. Many states also offer a certificate of completion, attendance, or achievement; some states offer more than one of these options but only eight states have special education diplomas. Nearly all of these options are available for alternate assessment participants within states that offer them. Some states identified other options such as a vocational diploma and advanced studies diploma. Eight states are still deciding what type of exit document to award alternate assessment participants. None of the unique states reported offering a regular diploma to alternate assessment participants.

Table 10. Diploma Options Across States

Exit Documents Available in State Available to Alternate
Assessment Participants

 

Regular

Unique

Regular

Unique

Regular Diploma

42  (84%)*

1

26  (52%)

0

Special Education Diploma

  8  (16%)

0

  8   (16%)

0

Certificate of Completion

20  (40%)

1

17  (34%)

1

Certificate of Attendance

11  (22%)

1

12  (24%)

1

Certificate of Achievement

  4  (8%)

0

  3   (6%)

0

Other

11  (22%)

1

  7   (14%)

0

Undecided

  1  (2%)

0

  8   (16%)

1

* Remaining states have local diplomas or are revising their diploma options.

 

IEPs and State Assessments

Getting information about standards and assessments to IEP teams is another challenge for states. Nearly every state director reported that information is sent to local special education directors who then pass it on to IEP team members (see Figure 12). In addition, almost half of the states send information directly to IEP team members. Most states also offer workshops and other training sessions and provide information about standards and assessment on the Internet. The unique states reported similar dissemination strategies.

Figure 12. How IEP Teams Learn about Standards and Assessments

When asked how content standards are addressed on IEPs in each state, over half of the state directors responded that IEP goals are aligned or referenced to state standards (see Figure 13). In some states, such as Alaska, Kentucky, and Montana, IEP teams are encouraged to use performance standards as a basis for creating IEP goals and objectives. Other states require IEP goals to address state standards (e.g., Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, New Mexico). Some of these requirements are addressed in policy and others, such as Illinois, address the requirements in law as follows:

A statement of measurable annual goals that reflect consideration of the State Goals for Learning and the Illinois Learning Standards…as well as benchmarks or short-term objectives…related to: Meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability, to enable the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum.

 

Figure 13. How Standards are Addressed on IEPs

Ten state directors responded that addressing standards on IEPs is a local decision. Two state IEPs address standards for alternate assessment participants only. Another two states address standards only through the assessment decisions on their IEPs. One state attaches a checklist addressing standards to each student’s IEP. The unique states are just beginning work in this area.

 

Referrals for Special Education Services

Anticipated increases in the number of referrals for special education services are an issue especially in states with high stakes assessments. Of the 22 states that track referral rates, 9 reported referral rates to be about the same or lower than in previous years, and 13 states reported an increase (see Figure 14). One unique state reported a lower referral rate and another reported that rates stayed about the same.

Figure 14. Change in Referral Rates

Figure 14. Change in Referral Rates 


Emerging Issues and Future Challenges

Many challenges remain for states as they continue to include students with disabilities in state assessments. State directors identify a wide range of emerging issues and challenges (see Figure 15). The most frequently mentioned are inclusive reporting, inclusive accountability, and the gray areas of assessment (referring to the inability of assessments to include all students appropriately). “Other” includes system stakes, participation decisions, and professional development.

Figure 15. Emerging Issues


Appendix A

State Assessment Participation and Performance Summary Table

State

Change in Participation Rates

Change in Performance Levels

Alabama

Higher

Data Forthcoming

Alaska

Data Forthcoming

Data Forthcoming

Arizona

Higher

Same

Arkansas

Higher

Data Forthcoming

California

Higher

Higher

Colorado

Same

Higher

Connecticut

Higher

Same

Delaware

Data Forthcoming

Higher

Florida

Higher

Same

Georgia

Higher

Same

Hawaii

Higher

Data Forthcoming

Idaho

Higher

Higher

Illinois

Same

Same

Indiana

Higher

Same

Iowa

Higher

Same

Kansas

Higher

Data Forthcoming

Kentucky

Same

Same

Louisiana

Higher

Higher

Maine

Higher

Lower

Maryland

Same

Same

Massachusetts

Same

Same

Michigan

Data Forthcoming

Higher

Minnesota

Same

Same

Mississippi

Same

Data Forthcoming

Missouri

Data Forthcoming

Higher

Montana

Data Forthcoming

Data Forthcoming

Nebraska

Data Forthcoming

Data Forthcoming

Nevada

Higher

Same

New Hampshire

Higher

Data Forthcoming

New Jersey

Higher

Lower

New Mexico

Higher

Lower

New York

Higher

Data Forthcoming

North Carolina

Higher

Higher

North Dakota

Same

Same

Ohio

Higher

Data Forthcoming

Oklahoma

Higher

Same

Oregon

Higher

Same

Pennsylvania

Higher

Lower

Rhode Island

Higher

Same

South Carolina

Higher

Data Forthcoming

South Dakota

Same

Higher

Tennessee

Higher

Data Forthcoming

Texas

Same

Higher

Utah

Higher

Higher

Vermont

Same

Same

Virginia

Same

Higher

Washington

Lower

Higher

West Virginia

Higher

Higher

Wisconsin

Higher

Higher

Wyoming

Same

Same

Unique States

 

 

American Samoa

Data Forthcoming

Data Forthcoming

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Higher

Data Forthcoming

Department of Defense

No Response

No Response

District of Columbia

No Response

No Response

Guam

No Response

No Response

Mariana Islands

No Response

No Response

Marshall Islands

No Response

No Response

Micronesia

No Response

No Response

Palau

Data Forthcoming

Data Forthcoming

Puerto Rico

No Response

No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands

No Response

No Response

Key:  No Response = State did not respond to the question; Data Forthcoming = State does not have results available (i.e., first year of test, testing not complete, results not compiled at time of survey, etc). 


Appendix B

Accommodations Summary Table

 State

 Change in Accommodation Use

How State Collects Information on Accommodations Used

 Students Eligible forAccommodations

Alabama

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Alaska

Higher

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Arizona

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Arkansas

No Record

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

California

No Record

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504

Colorado

Higher

Form Indicates One

Any Student with Need

Connecticut

No Record

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Delaware

No Record

IEP Info. Coded on Test

IEP, 504, LEP

Florida

Same

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Georgia

No Record

Form Indicates One

IEP, 504, LEP

Hawaii

Higher

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504

Idaho

Same

No Record

IEP, 504

Illinois

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504

Indiana

Higher

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Iowa

No Record

No Record

Any Student with Need

Kansas

Higher

Form Indicates One

Any Student with Need

Kentucky

Same

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Louisiana

Same

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Maine

Same

IEP Info. Coded on Test

Any Student with Need

Maryland

Higher

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Massachusetts

Higher

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Michigan

No Record

Form Indicates One

IEP, 504, LEP

Minnesota

Higher

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Mississippi

No Record

No Record

IEP

Missouri

Same

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Montana

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Nebraska

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Nevada

Higher

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

New Hampshire

Same

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

New Jersey

Higher

IEP Info. Coded on Test

IEP, 504, LEP

New Mexico

No Record

Form Indicates All

IEP

New York

Higher

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

North Carolina

Higher

IEP Info. Coded on Test

IEP, 504, LEP

North Dakota

Higher

IEP Info. Coded on Test

Any Student with Need

Ohio

Same

IEP Info. Coded on Test

IEP, 504

Oklahoma

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Oregon

No Record

No Record

Any Student with Need

Pennsylvania

Same

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

Rhode Island

Same

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

South Carolina

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504

South Dakota

Same

Form Indicates One

IEP, 504

Tennessee

Higher

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

Texas

No Record

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

Utah

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Vermont

Same

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

Virginia

No Record

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

Washington

Same

Form Indicates All

IEP, 504, LEP

West Virginia

Higher

Form Indicates One

IEP, 504

Wisconsin

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504, LEP

Wyoming

Same

Form Indicates All

Any Student with Need

Unique States

 

 

 

American Samoa

Higher

No Record

IEP

Bureau of Indian Affairs

No Record

No Record

IEP, 504

Department of Defense

No Response

No Response

No Response

District of Columbia

No Response

No Response

No Response

Guam

No Response

No Response

No Response

Mariana Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

Marshall Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

Micronesia

No Response

No Response

No Response

Palau

No Record

IEP Info. Coded on Test

IEP

Puerto Rico

No Response

No Response

No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

Key:  No Record = State does not collect the information; No Response = State did not respond to the question


Appendix C

Alternate Assessment Summary Table

> State

 Standards

 Approach

Student Performance Measures

System Performance Measures

 Scorers

Performance Descriptors

Alabama

Skills Linked

Checklist

a, b, c, d

None

a, b, e

No Decision

Alaska

Standards + Skills

Evidence

a, b, c, d

a, b, c, d, e

a, b, c, d, Other

Same

Arizona

State Standards

Combination

a, c, d

No Decision

No Decision

Different

Arkansas

State Standards

Evidence

a, c

b, c

c

Different

California

Skills Linked

Combination

a, b, c

b, c, d

a

Different

Colorado

State Standards

Performance

a, c

a, b, c, e

a, e

Different

Connecticut

Skills Linked

Checklist

a, c, d

None

e

Same/Different

Delaware

Standards + Skills

Evidence

a, b, c, d

a, b, c, d, e

b, c, d

Same

Florida

Skills Linked

Combination

a, c, d

a,b,c

a

No Decision

Georgia

Skills Only

IEP Analysis

a, b, c, d, e

No Response

a

Different

Hawaii

State Standards

Evidence

a

a, b, c, e

a

Different

Idaho

State Standards

Combination

a

None

a, Other

Different

Illinois

State Standards

Evidence

b

a, b

e

No Decision

Indiana

Standards + Skills

Evidence

a, b, c

Other

a

Different

Iowa

LEA Standards

Evidence

a, b

Other

Other

Different

Kansas

Standards + Skills

Evidence

a, b, c

a, b, c, d

e

Same

Kentucky

State Standards

Evidence

a, b, c, d

a, b, c, d, e

a, c, e

Same

Louisiana

Standards + Skills

Performance

a, c, d

None

a, b, e

Different

Maine

State Standards

Evidence

a

a, b, c

c

Same

Maryland

Skills Linked

Combination

a, b, c

a, b, c, d, e

a, b, c

Different

Massachusetts

Skills Linked

Evidence

a, c, d, e

Other

c

Same/Different

Michigan

State Standards

Performance

a, c

No Response

Other

No Decision

Minnesota

Standards + Skills

Checklist

a, b, c, d

a, b, c, d, e

a

Different

Mississippi

Skills Only

Checklist

b

No Decision

b

Same

Missouri

State Standards

Evidence

b, c, d

b

c

No Decision

Montana

State Standards

Checklist

a

a

a, Other

Same

Nebraska

Skills Only

Checklist

a, b, c, d, e

a. b. c

a

Same

Nevada

Standards + Skills

Checklist

a, c, d

Other

a

Different

New Hampshire

State Standards

Evidence

a, b, c

a, b, c, e

c

Same

New Jersey

State Standards

Evidence

e

No Decision

c

Different

New Mexico

Skills Linked

Checklist

a, c

None

e

Same

New York

State Standards

No Decision

a, b, c, d

a, b

No Decision

Same

North Carolina

Skills Linked

Evidence

a, b

e

e

Same

North Dakota

Standards + Skills

Evidence

a, b, c

None

No Decision

No Decision

Ohio

Skills Only

IEP Analysis

b

a, b, c, d, e

Other

Different

Oklahoma

Standards + Skills

Evidence

a, c, d

a, b, c, e

c

Same

Oregon

State Standards

Combination

e

b, c

a, Other

Same

Pennsylvania

State Standards

Performance

a, c

c

c, d, e

Same/Different

Rhode Island

State Standards

Evidence

a, c

a, c

c

Same

South Carolina

Skills Linked

Evidence

a

Other

b

Different

South Dakota

Skills Linked

Checklist

a, b

Other

a, Other

Different

Tennessee

Skills Linked

Evidence

c

a, b, c, d, e

b, d

Same

Texas

IEP Decision

Combination

e

Other

e

No Decision

Utah

Skills Linked

IEP Analysis

b

Other

a, d

Same

Vermont

Skills Linked

Evidence

a, b

Other

No Decision

Same

Virginia

Skills Linked

Evidence

a, c, d

No Response

e

No Decision

Washington

State Standards

No Decision

a, b

a

No Decision

No Decision

West Virginia

State Standards

Evidence

a, c, d

None

a, Other

Different

Wisconsin

IEP Decision

Combination

e

No Response

a

No Levels

Wyoming

State Standards

Evidence

a, c

None

a, Other

Different

Unique States

 

American Samoa

Skills Linked

Checklist

a, c

None

No Decision

No Decision

Bureau of Indian Affairs

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

Department of Defense

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

District of Columbia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Guam

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Mariana Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Marshall Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Micronesia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Palau

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

None

No Decision

No Decision

Puerto Rico

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Key:  No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to the question.

Standard:  State Standards = State standards (may be expanded); Standards + Skills = State standards plus functional skills; Skills linked = Functional skills linked back to state standards; Skills only= Functional skills only, no link to state standards; IEP Decision = Decision about standards is up to IEP team.

Approach: Evidence = Body of Evidence/Portfolio; Checklist = Checklist/Rating Scale; Combination = Combination of strategies listed; Performance = Specific performance assessment; IEP Analysis = Analysis of IEP goals.

Student Performance Measures:  a=skill/competence level; b=degree of progress; c=level of competence; d=ability to generalize; e=other; None = No system performance measures.

System Performance Measures:  a=staff support; b=variety of settings; c=appropriateness (age appropriate, challenging, authentic); d=parent satisfaction; e=participation in general education.

Scorers: a = student’s teacher; b = teachers in district; c = teachers from other districts; d = state agency; e = test contractor.


Appendix D

Reporting Summary Table

 State

Approved Accommodations

Non-approved Accommodations

Out-of-Level Testing

Alternate Assessment

 No Participation

Alabama

No Decision

Separate

Separate

Separate

Not Counted

Alaska

Aggregated

Separate

None

Separate

Other

Arizona

Aggregated

Separate

Separate

Separate

Not Counted

Arkansas

Separate

Aggregated

None

Separate

No Decision

California

Aggregated

Counted

Counted

No Decision

Not Counted

Colorado

Aggregated

Other

None

Separate

Counted

Connecticut

Aggregated

No Decision

Separate

Counted

Not Counted

Delaware

Aggregated

Separate

Counted

Separate

Score Zero

Florida

Separate

Other

None

No Decision

Not Counted

Georgia

Aggregated, Separate

Aggregated, Separate, Counted

Aggregated

Separate

Other

Hawaii

Aggregated

Aggregated

Aggregated

No Decision

Not Counted

Idaho

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

Other

Not Counted

Illinois

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

Separate

Not Counted

Indiana

Aggregated, Separate

Lowest Score

None

No Decision

Other

Iowa

Aggregated

Not Counted

Aggregated

Separate

Other

Kansas

Aggregated

Separate

None

Other

Not Counted

Kentucky

Aggregated

Other

None

Aggregated

Lowest Score

Louisiana

Aggregated

Aggregated, Separate

Separate

Separate

Counted

Maine

Aggregated

Other

None

Aggregated

Not Counted

Maryland

Other

Other

None

No Decision

Other

Massachusetts

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

Aggregated

Lowest Score

Michigan

Aggregated

No Decision

None

Other

No Decision

Minnesota

Aggregated

Other

None

Separate

Not Counted

Mississippi

Aggregated

Not Counted

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

Missouri

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

No Decision

Other

Montana

Aggregated

Separate

None

No Decision

Not Counted

Nebraska

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

Counted

No Decision

Nevada

Aggregated

Separate

None

Separate

Not Counted

New Hampshire

Aggregated

Lowest Score

None

Both

Score Zero

New Jersey

Aggregated

Other

None

No Decision

Other

New Mexico

Aggregated, Separate

Other

None

Separate

Other

New York

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

No Decision

Score Zero

North Carolina

Aggregated

Not Counted

None

Separate

Other

North Dakota

Aggregated

Aggregated

Aggregated

No Decision

Not Counted

Ohio

Aggregated

Counted

None

No Decision

No Decision

Oklahoma

Aggregated, Separate

Other

None

No Decision

Counted

Oregon

Aggregated

Separate

Aggregated

Separate

Not Counted

Pennsylvania

Aggregated

Other

None

No Decision

Not Counted

Rhode Island

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

Both

Counted

South Carolina

Aggregated

Separate

Aggregated

Separate

Score Zero

South Dakota

Aggregated

Separate

None

Aggregated

Not Counted

Tennessee

Aggregated

Other

None

Both

Not Counted

Texas

Aggregated

Other

Aggregated

No Decision

Counted

Utah

Aggregated

Separate

Separate

Aggregated

Not Counted

Vermont

Aggregated

Separate

Separate

Separate

Score Zero

Virginia

Aggregated

Aggregated

None

Aggregated

Not Counted

Washington

Aggregated

Counted

None

Counted

Counted

West Virginia

Aggregated

Other

None

No Decision

Not Counted

Wisconsin

Aggregated

Other

None

Other

Counted

Wyoming

Aggregated

Score Zero

None

Aggregated

Score Zero

Unique States

 

 

 

 

 

American Samoa

Separate

Separate

None

Separate

Not Counted

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Aggregated, Separate

Aggregated, Separate

None

No Decision

Not Counted

Department of Defense

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

District of Columbia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Guam

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Mariana Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Marshall Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Micronesia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Palau

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

Puerto Rico

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Key:  No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to the question;

Aggregated = Student counted as assessment participant, and actual score is aggregated with scores of all other assessment participants; Separate = Student counted as assessment participant, but actual score is reported separately; Lowest Score = Student counted as assessment participant, and given lowest score, Score Zero = Student counted as assessment participant, and given score of zero; Counted = Student counted as assessment participant, and no score is given; Not Counted = Student not counted as assessment participant, and no score is given; None = This type of assessment is not administered.


Appendix E

Accountability Summary Table

 State

Assessment Performance

Attendance

Drop-Out Rates

Suspension Rates

Graduation Rates

No Decision

 Other

Alabama

a

 

 

 

 

 

b c

Alaska

a b c

a b

a b

 

a b

 

 

Arizona

a b c

 

a b c

 

 

 

 

Arkansas

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

California

a

 

a

 

a

b c

 

Colorado

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

c

Connecticut

a b c

 

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Delaware

a b c

 

 

 

 

 

 

Florida

a b

 

a b c

a b c

a b c

c

a b c

Georgia

a

 

 

 

a

a b c

 

Hawaii

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Idaho

a b

a

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

c

Illinois

a b

a b

a b

 

 

c

 

Indiana

a b

a b

 

 

a b

c

 

Iowa

a b c

 

a b c

b c

a b c

 

 

Kansas

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Kentucky

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

 

a b c

Louisiana

a b

a b c

a b c

 

a b

c

 

Maine

a b c

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland

a b

a b

a b

a b

a b

 

c

Massachusetts

a b

 

 

 

 

c

b

Michigan

a b c

 

 

 

 

a b c

 

Minnesota

a b c

 

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Mississippi

a b c

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri

a b

a b

a b

 

a b

c

 

Montana

a

 

a

 

a

b c

a

Nebraska

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Nevada

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

New Hampshire

a b c

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

New Mexico

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

 

a b c

New York

a b

 

a b

 

 

c

 

North Carolina

a b c

 

a b c

 

 

 

a b

North Dakota

a b

a

a

 

a

c

 

Ohio

a b

a b

a b

a b

a b

c

 

Oklahoma

 

 

 

 

 

a b c

 

Oregon

a b c

 

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Pennsylvania

a b

a b

 

 

 

c

 

Rhode Island

a b c

 

a

a

a

a b c

 

South Carolina

a b c

a

a

a

a

 

 

South Dakota

 

 

 

 

 

a b c

 

Tennessee

a b c

 

 

 

 

a b c

 

Texas

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Utah

a b c

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vermont

a b c

 

a b c

 

 

 

 

Virginia

a b c

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington

 

 

 

 

 

a b c

 

West Virginia

a b c

a

a b c

a b c

a b c

 

 

Wisconsin

a b

a b c

a b c

 

a b c

 

 

Wyoming

 

 

 

 

 

a b c

 

Unique States

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

American Samoa

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

Bureau of Indian Affairs

a, b

a, b

a, b

a, b

a, b

a, b

a, b

Department of Defense

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

District of Columbia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Guam

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Mariana Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Marshall Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Micronesia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Palau

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

No Decision

Puerto Rico

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Key:  No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to the question;

a = Component of our state accountability system; b = Component that includes students with disabilities who participate in general assessments (with accommodations as needed), c = Component that includes students with disabilities who participate in alternate assessments.


Appendix F

Current Issues Summary Table

 State

 Out-of-Level Testing Option

 LEP Students with Disabilities

Alternate Assessment Diploma Options

 IEP Team Information

 Special Ed. Referral Rates

Alabama

Yes

Unknown

a, b, c

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Alaska

No

Unknown

d

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Arizona

Yes

Participation

a, c

b, c, d

Unknown

Arkansas

No

Unknown

a, c

b, c, d

Unknown

California

Yes

Both

c

b

Same

Colorado

No

Both

a, c, d

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Connecticut

Yes

Participation

a, c, d

b, c, d

Lower

Delaware

Yes

Unknown

c

a, b, c, d,

Same

Florida

No

Both

b

b, c

Unknown

Georgia

Yes

Participation

b

b, c

Unknown

Hawaii

Yes

Unknown

No Decision

a, b, c, d

Higher

Idaho

No

Unknown

a

b, c, d

Higher

Illinois

No

Unknown

a, b, c, d

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Indiana

No

Unknown

c, d

b, c, d

Higher

Iowa

Yes

Unknown

No Response

Other

Unknown

Kansas

No

Unknown

a

b, c, d

Same

Kentucky

No

Both

a, c

b, c, d

Unknown

Louisiana

Yes

Unknown

e

b, c

Unknown

Maine

No

Both

No Response

b, c, d

Higher

Maryland

No

Unknown

c

a, b, c, d

Higher

Massachusetts

No

Unknown

a

a, b, d, c

Unknown

Michigan

No

Unknown

Unknown

b, c, d

Higher

Minnesota

No

Unknown

a

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Mississippi

Yes

Unknown

c

a, b, c, d

No response

Missouri

No

Unknown

a, d

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Montana

No

Performance

a

b, c, d

Unknown

Nebraska

No

Participation

No Response

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Nevada

No

Unknown

b, d

a, b, c, d

No response

New Hampshire

No

Performance

Other

a, b, c

Same

New Jersey

No

Both

a

a, b, c, d

Higher

New Mexico

No

Unknown

a

b, c, d

Unknown

New York

No

Unknown

a, b

a, b, c, d

Higher

North Carolina

No

Unknown

Other

b, c, d

Higher

North Dakota

Yes

Unknown Response

a, c, d, e

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Ohio

No

Unknown

No Response

a, b, c, d

Same

Oklahoma

No

Unknown

a

b, c

Unknown

Oregon

Yes

Unknown

a, c, d, e

a, b, c, d

Higher

Pennsylvania

No

Unknown

a

b, c, d

Unknown

Rhode Island

No

Unknown

a, c, d

a, b, c, d

Unknown

South Carolina

Yes

Unknown

d

a, b, c, d

Unknown

South Dakota

No

Unknown

c, d

b, c, d

Unknown

Tennessee

No

Both

b

a, b, c, d

Unknown

Texas

Yes

Both

a

a, b, c, d

Same

Utah

Yes

Performance

a, c, d

b, c, d

Unknown

Vermont

Yes

Both

a

b, c, d

Same

Virginia

No

Performance

b

b

Unknown

Washington

No

Unknown

No Decision

b, c

Same

West Virginia

Yes

Unknown

Other

b, c, d

Unknown

Wisconsin

No

Unknown

Other

b, c, d

Higher

Wyoming

No

Unknown

a

b, c, d

Higher

Unique States

 

 

 

 

 

American Samoa

No

Unknown

d

a, c

Same

Bureau of Indian Affairs

No

Unknown

No Decision

b, d

Unknown

Department of Defense

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

District of Columbia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Guam

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Mariana Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Marshall Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Micronesia

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Palau

No

Both

c

c

Lower

Puerto Rico

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

U.S. Virgin Islands

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

No Response

Key:  No Decision = State has not made a decision; No Response = State did not respond to the question; Unknown = This information is unavailable.

Out-of-Level Testing Option: Yes = State has out-of-level testing option; No = State does not have out-of-level testing option.

LEP Students with Disabilities: Participation = State disaggregates participation data for LEP students with disabilities; Performance = State disaggregates performance data for LEP students with disabilities; Both = State disaggregates both participation and performance data for LEP students with disabilities.

Alt. Assess. Diploma Options: a =regular diploma; b =special education diploma; c =certificate of completion;d =certificate of attendance; e =certificate of achievement; f =vocational diploma.

IEP Team Information: a =Information sent to IEP team members; b =Information sent to local directors of special education who pass it on to IEP team members; c =Workshops/training sessions;  d =Information available on Internet.


© 2013 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Online Privacy Statement
This page was last updated on January 03, 2013

NCEO is supported primarily through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G050007, #H326G110002) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on LEP students, is provided by other federal and state agencies. Opinions expressed in this Web site do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it.