NCEO Logo
Bookmark and Share

Activities, Changes, and Challenges for Special Education

2007 Survey of States

Jason Altman • Sheryl Lazarus • Martha Thurlow • Rachel Quenemoen • Marjorie Cuthbert & Damien Cormier

October 2008

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

Altman, J. R., Lazarus, S. L., Thurlow, M. L., Quenemoen, R. F., Cuthbert, M., & Cormier, D. C. (2008). 2007 survey of states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.


Table of Contents

The Mission of the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Acknowledgments
State Directors of Special Education
State Directors of Assessment
Executive Summary
Overview of 2007 Survey
Participation and Performance
Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)
English Language Learners with Disabilities
Assessment Development Practices
Current and Emerging Issues
Preferred Forms of Technical Assistance
Appendix A: Practices Deemed Most Responsible for Narrowing the Achievement Gap
Appendix B: Ways States Document that Assessment Systems are Fair and Accessible for ELLs with Disabilities
Appendix C: Elements of Universal Design Addressed in the Development Process of Regular Assessments
Appendix D: Changes to State Assessment Policies or Practices in Response to Recent Changes in NCLB or IDEA Regulations or Guidelines
Appendix E: States that Record Accommodations ACTUALLY Used on Test Day


The Mission of the National Center on Educational Outcomes

NCEO Staff

Deb Albus
Jason Altman
Manuel Barrera
Laurene Christensen
Christopher Johnstone
Jane Krentz
Sheryl Lazarus
Kristi Liu
Ross Moen
Michael Moore
Rachel Quenemoen
Christopher Rogers
Dorene Scott
Vitaliy Shyyan
Miong Vang
Yi-Chen Wu
 

Martha Thurlow,
Director

NCEO is a collaborative effort of the University of Minnesota, the National 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:

  • Needs Assessments and Information Gathering 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.

  • State Data Collection Technical Assistance to assist states in continuing to meet the challenges of collecting comprehensive, accurate, and consistent data on the participation and performance of students with disabilities.

  • 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 (#H326G050007) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for targeted projects, including those on English language learners, 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.

National Center on Educational Outcomes
207 Pattee Hall
150 Pillsbury Dr. SE
Minneapolis, MN 55455
612/626-1530 • Fax: 612/624-0879 • http://www.nceo.info

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


Acknowledgments

With the collective efforts of State Directors of Special Education, and State Directors of Assessment, we are able to report on the activities of all 50 states and 3 of 11 federally funded entities (unique states). Because of the thoughtful and knowledgeable responses of the directors of special education, directors of assessment, and their designees who completed this survey, we are able to share new initiatives, trends, accomplishments, and emerging issues during this important period of education reform. The purpose of this report is to make public the trends and issues facing states, as well as the innovations states are using to meet the demands of changing federal legislation. We appreciate the time taken by respondents to gather information from other areas or departments, and we hope that this collaborative effort provided an opportunity to increase awareness within and across state programs and departments.

For their support, special thanks go to:

  • Dave Egnor, of the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education (OSEP)

  • Lou Danielson, formerly of the Office of Special Education Programs in the U.S. Department of Education (OSEP), now with American Institutes for Research;

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

  • Michael Moore, online survey designer and communications director for the National Center on Educational Outcomes; and Miong Vang, office assistant; and

  • June De Leon, of the University of Guam, for her assistance in obtaining completed surveys from the Pacific unique states.

NCEO’s 2007 Survey of States was prepared by Jason R. Altman, Sheryl S. Lazarus, Martha L. Thurlow, Rachel F. Quenemoen, Marjorie Cuthbert, and Damien C. Cormier.


State Directors of Special Education

ALABAMA
Mabrey Whetstone

ALASKA
Art Arnold

ARIZONA
Colette Chapman

ARKANSAS
Marcia Harding

CALIFORNIA
Mary Hudler

COLORADO
Ed Steinberg

CONNECTICUT
Brian Cunnane

DELAWARE
Martha Toomey

FLORIDA
Bambi Lockman

GEORGIA
Kimberly Hartsell
Nancy O’Hara

HAWAII
Paul Ban

IDAHO
Jean Taylor
Jacque Hyatt

ILLINOIS
Beth Hanselman

INDIANA
Robert Marra

IOWA
Lana Michelson

KANSAS
Colleen Riley

KENTUCKY
Larry Taylor

LOUISIANA
Susan Batson

MAINE
David Stockford

MARYLAND
Carol Ann Baglin

MASSACHUSETTS
Marcia Mittnacht

MICHIGAN
Jacquelyn Thompson

MINNESOTA
Barbara L. Troolin

MISSISSIPPI
Ann Moore

MISSOURI
Heidi Atkins Lieberman

MONTANA
Tim Harris

NEBRASKA
Gary Sherman

NEVADA
Frankie McCabe

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Santina Thibedeau

NEW JERSEY
Roberta Wohle

NEW MEXICO
Denise Koscielniak

NEW YORK
Rebecca Cort

NORTH CAROLINA
Mary Watson

NORTH DAKOTA
Robert Rutten

OHIO
Greg Maloney

OKLAHOMA
Misty Kimbrough

OREGON
Nancy Latini

PENNSYLVANIA
John Tommasini

RHODE ISLAND
Kenneth Swanson

SOUTH CAROLINA
Susan DuRant

SOUTH DAKOTA
Ann Larsen

TENNESSEE
Joseph Fisher

TEXAS
Kathy Clayton

UTAH
Nan Gray

VERMONT
Karin Edwards

VIRGINIA
Doug Cox

WASHINGTON
Doug Gill

WEST VIRGINIA
Lynn Boyer

WISCONSIN
Stephanie Petska

WYOMING
Peggy Brown-Clark

AMERICAN SAMOA
Moeolo Vaatausili

BUREAU OF INDIAN
EDUCATION
Lynann Barbero
Gloria Yepa

DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
Lorie Sebestyen

DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
Gayle Amos

GUAM
Katrina Celes Pieper

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Doreen Tudela

MARSHALL ISLANDS
Ruthiran Lokeijak

MICRONESIA
Arthur Albert

PALAU
Evans Imetengel

PUERTO RICO
Miriam Merced Cruz

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Carrie S. Johns

These were the state directors of special education in August, 2007 when NCEO verified the survey.


State Directors of Assessment

ALABAMA
Gloria Turner

ALASKA
Les Morse

ARIZONA
Roberta Alley

ARKANSAS
Gayle Potter

CALIFORNIA
Deb V.H. Sigman

COLORADO
Elizabeth Celva

CONNECTICUT
Barbara Beaudin

DELAWARE
Wendy B. Roberts

FLORIDA
Cornelia S. Orr

GEORGIA
Chris Domaleski

HAWAII
Robert McClelland

IDAHO
Vacant

ILLINOIS
Connie Wise

INDIANA
Michele Walker

IOWA
Thomas Deeter

KANSAS
Cheryl Randall

KENTUCKY
Pam Rogers

LOUISIANA
Scott Norton

MAINE
John Kennedy

MARYLAND
Leslie Wilson

MASSACHUSETTS
Katherine A. Viator

MICHIGAN
Edward Roeber

MINNESOTA
Dirk Mattson

MISSISSIPPI
Cindy Simmons

MISSOURI
Michael Muenks

MONTANA
Judy Snow

NEBRASKA
Pat Roschewski

NEVADA
Paul M. LaMarca

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Timothy Kurtz

NEW JERSEY
Tim Peters

NEW MEXICO
Janet Haas

NEW YORK
David Abrams

NORTH CAROLINA
Louis M. Fabrizio

NORTH DAKOTA
Jean Newborg

OHIO
Judy Feil

OKLAHOMA
Jennifer Stegman

OREGON
Tony Alpert

PENNSYLVANIA
Shula Nedley

RHODE ISLAND
Mary Ann Snider

SOUTH CAROLINA
Teri Siskind

SOUTH DAKOTA
Gay Pickner

TENNESSEE
Dan Long

TEXAS
Vacant

UTAH
Deborah Swensen

VERMONT
Michael Hock

VIRGINIA
Shelley Loving-Ryder

WASHINGTON
Joe Willhoft

WEST VIRGINIA
Jan Barth

WISCONSIN
Lynette Russell

WYOMING
John Durkee and
Lesley Wangberg

AMERICAN SAMOA
Elizabeth Haleck

BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION
Patricia Abeyta

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Gretchen Ridgeway

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Patricia Anderson

GUAM
Nerissa Bretania-Shafer

NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
Rita Sablan

MARSHALL ISLANDS
Stanley Heine

MICRONESIA
Burnis Danis

PALAU
Raynold Mechol

PUERTO RICO
Angel Canales

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Lauren Larsen

These were the state directors of assessment in August 2007 when NCEO verified the survey.


Executive Summary

This report summarizes the eleventh survey of states by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota. Results are presented for all 50 states and 3 of the 11 federally funded entities (unique states). The purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of the new initiatives, trends, accomplishments, and emerging issues during this important period of standards-based education reform as states document the academic achievement of students with disabilities.

Key findings include:

  • More states than in the past are counting as non-participants those students who used accommodations that produced invalid results or who tested at a grade lower than their level of enrollment.

  • More than half of the states are considering developing an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS).

  • Most states now have policies on the selection and use of accommodations and on alternate assessments that include information specifically about English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities. However, many states do not disaggregate assessment results for ELLs with disabilities and are not able to chart progress or examine trends for this group.

  • A few states track the performance of students who consistently perform poorly on regular assessments.

  • Most states record the specific accommodations used by a student on test day.

Also, more than half of the states attributed positive trends in the participation and performance of students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems to the following factors:

  • Use of student assessment data to inform decision making.

  • Emphasis on inclusion and access to the curriculum.

  • Increased access to standards-based instruction on the grade-level content.

  • Improved alignment of IEPs with grade-level standards.

  • Increased inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.

  • Increased use of research-based "best practices."

  • Improved alignment of professional development.

States continue to work on ensuring meaningful participation of students with disabilities in state assessments. Progress during the two years since the previous survey has been strong—though many challenges remain.


Overview of 2007 Survey

This report marks the 11th time over the past 16 years that the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has collected information from states about the participation and performance of students with disabilities during standards-based reform.

State directors of special education and state directors of assessment were asked to provide the name and contact information of the person they thought had the best working knowledge of the state’s thinking, policies, and practices for including students with disabilities in assessment and other aspects of educational reform. In many states, more than one contact was identified; the respondents were asked to work as a team to complete the survey.

Responses were gathered online. A hard copy of the survey was provided to a few states that preferred to respond by completing a written questionnaire. Once the responses were compiled, the data were verified with the states. For the fourth survey administration in a row all 50 regular states responded to the survey. In addition, representatives from American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands completed the survey.

A positive theme throughout this report is that the benefits of inclusive assessment and accountability systems are now widely recognized. Although challenges remain, there continues to be a strong positive trend in results as states seek to continually improve practices.

Eleven Unique States

American Samoa

Bureau of Indian Education

Department of Defense

District of Columbia

Guam

Northern Mariana Islands

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands


Participation and Performance

With the inclusion of students with disabilities in assessments and accountability systems, increased attention is paid to the reporting of participation and performance data. Similarly, states increasingly are attending to these data and considering ways to increase the performance of their students with disabilities.

Participation Reporting Practices

States include students with disabilities in their participation reports in different ways, depending on the nature of their participation. States were asked about student participation in both the 2005 and the 2007 surveys. More states reported counting students as non-participants than in the past (see Table 1). Those counted as non-participants included: students who did not participate in any way, students who sat for the assessment but did not complete it, students who used accommodations that produced invalid results, and students who tested at a lower grade level than their enrollment.

Performance Trends

The states identified several factors that contributed to positive changes in the percentage of students with disabilities achieving proficiency on the reading or math assessments used for accountability purposes. Factors selected by at least 28 of the states are shown in Figure 1. Selected most frequently were:

  • Increased access to standards-based instruction on the grade-level content.

  • Increased inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.

  • More clearly communicated participation policies.

In addition, states identified these factors that increased the percentage of students with disabilities achieving proficiency:

  • Increased use of research-based "best practices."

  • Improved alignment of professional development.

  • Improved alignment of IEPs with grade-level standards.

  • Improved decision making resulted in students taking appropriate assessments.

Table 1. Reporting Practices for Counting Students as Assessment Participants

Scenario

State Category

Survey

Year

xot Counted as Participants, Received No Score

Counted as Participants, Received No Score, Score of Zero or Lowest Proficiency Level

Earned Score is Counted as Valid

Other, or No Answer

Students who did not participate in state assessments in any way (e.g., absent on test day, parent refusal)

Regular States

2007

47

2

0

1

2005

35

11

0

4

Unique Statesa

2007

1

0

1

1

2005

3

0

0

3

Students who attended (sat for) assessment, but did not complete enough items to score

Regular States

2007

16

27

7

0

2005

6

38

5

1

Unique Statesa

2007

0

1

1

1

2005

0

1

1

4

Students who used invalid accommodations (e.g., non-standard, modifications)

Regular States

2007

16

16

2

16

2005

8

24

6

12

Unique Statesa

2007

0

1

0

2

2005

0

2

0

4

Students who tested at a lower grade than their level of enrollment

Regular States

2007

16

3

2

29

2005

2

13

10

25

Unique Statesa

2007

0

1

0

2

2005

0

1

1

4

Students who sat for their second test administration in one school year

Regular States

2007

4

0

7

39

2005

xA

xA

xA

xA

Unique Statesa

2007

0

0

0

3

2005

xA

xA

xA

xA

a Fewer unique states completed surveys in 2007 than completed surveys in 2005. Representatives from American Samoa, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands completed the 2007 survey. In 2005, the survey was completed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Defense, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Figure 1. Perceived Factors Related to Positive Achievement Trends

More than half of the regular states indicated that they possess data that support the perceived factors related to positive achievement trends (see Figure 2). States pointed to documents such as federally required State Performance Plans and Annual Performance Reports as well as school and district report cards containing data that supported trends. States also noted other sources of data, and named Web sites where the data were housed.

States also documented some factors that may have resulted in negative changes—
or lack of change—in the percentage of students with disabilities achieving proficiency. Figure 3 lists the primary negative factors indicated by survey respondents. Selected most frequently were:

  • IEPs not aligned with grade-level standards.

  • Test options (including alternate assessments) do not meet the assessment needs of all students.

Figure 2. Availability of State Data or Documentation that Supports Factors Related to Positive Achievement Trends

Figure 3. Perceived Factors Related to Negative Achievement Trends

 

Practices that Narrow the Achievement Gap

In an analysis of promising practices in selected urban public school districts in Massachusetts, the Donahue Institute found that several practices supported the successful narrowing of the achievement gap between students with disabilities and students without disabilities in statewide assessments (Donahue Institute (2004). Report of research findings: Case studies and cross-case analysis of promising practices in selected urban public school districts in Massachusetts. Hadley, MA: University of Massachusetts.). States reported that the practices identified by the Donahue Institute are helpful in their states in raising the performance of students with disabilities and in bringing the performance of these students closer to that of students without disabilities (see Table 2). See individual state responses in Appendix A. Selected most frequently were:

  • Use of student assessment data to inform decision making.

  • Emphasis on inclusion and access to the curriculum.

  • A pervasive emphasis on curriculum alignment with state standards.

Table 2. Practices Deemed Most Responsible for Narrowing the Achievement Gap

Practice

Regular States

Unique States

Use of student assessment data to inform decision making

35

2

Emphasis on inclusion and access to the curriculum

31

2

A pervasive emphasis on curriculum alignment with state standards

29

2

Culture and practices that support high standards and student achievement

23

2

Unified practice supported by targeted professional development

21

2

Effective leadership is essential to success

18

2


Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)

States have the option of developing alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). In April 2007, No Child Left Behind regulations on AA-MAS were finalized. These regulations were released after many states had completed the survey that is the basis for this report.

States Considering an AA-MAS

Five states already had an assessment that they believed was an AA-MAS in 2007 when they completed the survey (see Figure 4). Thirty-three regular states were considering changing an existing grade-level assessment and another twenty-five were considering developing a new assessment (there is overlap in states selecting these two responses). Some states had no plans to provide this assessment option. A state not planning to develop an AA-MAS added the comment, "The first question to be addressed is ‘Why?’ We want to make sure that we have a robust answer for this question before we proceed."

Figure 4. States Considering the Development of an Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)

 

Possible Characteristics of AA-MAS

States are approaching the potential development of an AA-MAS in different ways. At least half of the states are considering reducing the number of total test items or the time required to complete the assessment, simplifying the vocabulary, or using shortened or fewer reading passages (see Table 3).

Table 3. Assessment Characteristics Considered by States Thinking About Developing "Modified" Assessment Instruments

State

Include only Multiple Choice Questions

Reduce the Number of Total Test Items or the Time Required to Complete the Assessment

Simplify Vocabulary

Use Non-traditional Items or Formats Based on Grade-level Content

Use Shortened or Fewer Reading Passages

Use Fewer Items or Fewer Answer Choices to Measure Math Skills

Arizona

 

x

x

x

x

Arkansas

x

x

x

x

x

California

 

x

x

x

x

x

Connecticut

 

x

x

x

x

Delaware

 

x

x

x

x

Florida

x

x

x

x

Idaho

x

x

x

x

x

Indiana

 

x

x

x

x

Kansas

x

x

x

x

x

Kentucky

x

x

x

x

x

x

Louisiana

 

x

x

x

x

Maryland

 

x

x

x

x

Michigan

 

x

x

x

Minnesota

x

x

x

 

x

 

Mississippi

 

x

x

x

Missouri

 

x

Nevada

 

x

x

x

New Hampshire

 

x

x

New Jersey

 

x

x

x

x

x

New Mexico

x

x

x

x

x

x

North Carolina

x

x

x

x

x

x

Ohio

x

x

x

x

Oklahoma

x

x

x

x

x

Oregon

 

x

Pennsylvania

 

x

x

x

x

South Carolina

 

x

x

x

Tennessee

x

x

x

x

x

x

Texas

 

x

x

x

x

Utah

 

x

x

x

Vermont

 

x

Virginia

 

x

Washington

 

x

x

x

x

West Virginia

 

x

x

x

Wyoming

 

x

x

x

Totals

11

26

26

14

29

23

             

Unique States

           

American Samoa

x

 

x

x

x

x

Note: States that did not respond to this question or states that do not plan to develop an AA-MAS are not included in this table.

Potential AA-MAS Participants

States indicated that they believe that some categories of students with disabilities may be more likely than others to participate in an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. Figure 5 shows the number of responding states (n = 40 regular states) selecting each disability category that they believe is likely to be included among participants in the AA-MAS. States were able to select as many categories as they wanted. Several states commented that the primary disability classification should not have any impact on assessment participation decision making. Overall, specific learning disabilities, autism, and mental retardation were the categories most often selected by those states that did indicate categories.

States identified disability categories that they considered likely to contain students who would participate in an AA-MAS. Respondents selected from a list of disability categories (see Figure 6) and responses ranged from zero to nine disability categories selected. The most common response was between four and six disability categories. It should be noted that three states responded that they were not intending to develop this type of alternate assessment, and therefore were counted in the total number of states not selecting any of the specific disability categories listed in the survey. Also most states which responded "other," provided only a comment and did not also select from the disability categories. These states were also counted in the total number of states selecting no disability categories.

Figure 5. Disability Categories of Students More Likely to Participate in an Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards

Note: None of the unique states indicated a disability category likely to participate in an AA-MAS.

Figure 6. Number of Disability Categories More Likely to Participate in an AA-MAS


English Language Learners with Disabilities

Several questions were asked on the survey to learn more about how English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities are included in state assessment systems and how results are reported for this group.

Documentation Approach for ELLs with Disabilities

Most states’ policies on the selection and use of accommodations and alternate assessments include information specifically about ELLs with disabilities (see Figure 7). Many states train personnel at the state, district, and school levels on the use of accommodations and alternate assessments for ELLs with disabilities and convene review committees with representation of identified subgroups. However, fewer states conduct data-based bias studies of assessment items or conduct studies to determine the appropriateness of accommodations and their impact on test scores. Individual state responses are provided in Appendix B. One respondent commented, "our state is an English-only state and ELL students, with and without disabilities, struggle with our assessment system."

Figure 7. Ways States Document that Assessment Systems are Fair and Accessible for ELLs with Disabilities

Reporting Assessment Results for ELLs with Disabilities

Many states do not disaggregate assessment results for ELLs with disabilities (see Table 4). Disaggregation serves purposes such as examining trends and to report on the participation or performance of the students. One state noted that it collects data on ELLs and students with disabilities, "but there is no way to merge the two . . . so in effect, the student may be disaggregated by ELL status and then again by exceptionality status."

Table 4. Assessments for Which States Disaggregate Assessment Results for English Language Learners (ELLs) with Disabilities

State

Regular Assessment

Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards

Disaggregation by ELLs With Disabilities Only After Special Request

State Does Not Disaggregate Assessment Results by ELLs With Disabilities

Other

Alabama

     

x

 

Alaska

   

x

   

Arizona

   

x

   

Arkansas

         

California

x

x

     

Colorado

x

x

     

Connecticut

   

x

   

Delaware

     

x

 

Florida

     

x

 

Georgia

     

x

 

Hawaii

     

x

 

Idaho

   

x

   

Illinois

     

x

 

Indiana

     

x

 

Iowa

     

x

 

Kansas

       

x

Kentucky

   

x

   

Louisiana

     

x

 

Maine

     

x

 

Maryland

   

x

x

 

Massachusetts

   

x

 

x

Michigan

x

x

x

   

Minnesota

     

x

 

Mississippi

x

x

     

Missouri

     

x

 

Montana

     

x

 

Nebraska

     

x

 

Nevada

     

x

 

New Hampshire

     

x

 

New Jersey

       

x

New Mexico

     

x

 

New York

     

x

 

North Carolina

     

x

 

North Dakota

     

x

 

Ohio

x

x

x

   

Oklahoma

x

       

Oregon

     

x

 

Pennsylvania

 

x

     

Rhode Island

     

x

 

South Carolina

   

x

   

South Dakota

     

x

 

Tennessee

x

     

x

Texas

   

x

   

Utah

       

x

Vermont

     

x

 

Virginia

x

       

Washington

     

x

 

West Virginia

     

x

 

Wisconsin

x

x

x

 

x

Wyoming

x

       

Totals

10

7

12

27

6

Note: None of the unique states reported documenting or disaggregating assessment results by ELLs with disabilities.


Assessment Development Practices

The test development process involves development of requests for proposals, test construction, item and test review, field testing, revision, and live testing. States responded to several questions about their assessment development practices.

Field Testing Items in Accommodated Formats

Most states reported that they field tested potential assessment items in an accommodated format as well as in the non-accommodated format. Most states embed items that are being field tested in the annual operational or "live" testing in a variety of formats. States reported field testing extended time and test proctor or use of a scribe most often. State data for these as well as other accommodations are shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Accommodated Formats that States Field Tested

State

Extended Time

Read Aloud

Proctor/
Scribe

Braille

Assistive Technology

Translation

Alabama

     

x

x

 

Alaska

x

x

x

 

x

 

Arizona

   

x

x

   

Arkansas

x

x

x

x

x

x

California

x

x

x

x

 

x

Colorado

           

Connecticut

x

   

x

x

x

Delaware

 

x

x

x

x

 

Florida

x

x

x

x

x

 

Georgia

x

x

x

x

x

 

Hawaii

x

x

x

x

x

 

Idaho

           

Illinois

           

Indiana

x

 

x

x

x

 

Iowa

           

Kansas

x

x

x

x

x

 

Kentucky

x

x

x

x

x

 

Louisiana

x

x

x

 

x

 

Maine

x

x

x

x

x

 

Maryland

x

x

x

x

x

 

Massachusetts

x

x

x

     

Michigan

x

x

 

x

x

x

Minnesota

 

x

x

x

x

x

Mississippi

x

x

x

x

x

 

Missouri

x

x

x

 

x

 

Montana

x

x

x

     

Nebraska

           

Nevada

x

x

x

   

x

New Hampshire

x

x

x

 

x

x

New Jersey

x

         

New Mexico

x

x

x

x

x

x

New York

x

x

x

x

x

x

North Carolina

x

x

x

x

x

 

North Dakota

x

x

x

x

x

 

Ohio

           

Oklahoma

           

Oregon

x

x

x

x

x

x

Pennsylvania

x

x

x

x

x

x

Rhode Island

x

x

x

x

x

 

South Carolina

x

 

x

 

x

 

South Dakota

 

x

x

 

x

 

Tennessee

x

x

x

x

x

 

Texas

x

x

x

 

x

x

Utah

x

x

x

x

x

x

Vermont

x

x

x

x

x

x

Virginia

x

x

x

 

x

 

Washington

           

West Virginia

x

x

x

x

x

x

Wisconsin

x

x

x

x

x

x

Wyoming

x

x

x

 

x

 

Totals

37

36

38

29

36

16

Unique States

American Samoa

x

x

x

 

x

x

Note: The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam did not field test items in accommodated formats.

Universal Design

States were asked how they addressed the principles or elements of universal design in the test development process for regular assessments. Many more states indicated in 2007 than in 2005 that they addressed the principles or elements of universal design in the RFP (i.e., the request for proposals) for regular assessments (see Table 6). Most states also considered universal design during test conceptualization and construction, and during the expert review process. Appendix C provides details about the implementation of universal design in individual states.

Table 6. Elements of Universal Design Addressed in the Development Process for Regular Assessments

Universal Design Element

Regular States (2005)

Regular States (2007)

Unique States
(2007)

RFP for test development

27

40

1

Test conceptualization and construction

N/A

39

1

Expert review

30

31

1

Think-aloud methods as part of field test

N/A

2

0

Statistical analysis

9

9

1

In cooperation with test contractors during final review

N/A

30

2

The elements of universal design are not addressed in our test development process

4

1

0

Other

4

8

1

N/A = NCEO did not collect this information on the 2005 survey.

States identified several "other" elements of universal design that they addressed. The other elements identified included:

  • Training test developers in the elements of universal design.

  • Consideration of how items may be adapted.

 

Content and "Bias" Review

During the test development process, there may be a content review by a team designed to ensure that the assessment measures key components, accurately measures constructs, and appropriately classifies items. In many states, the content review teams include more than one disability representative; these individuals represent a variety of disability categories (see Table 7). A few states have one person who represents all disability categories.

During bias reviews, representatives from communities who may experience bias (e.g., cultural or linguistic minorities, people from diverse socioeconomic levels) examine test items for potential sources of bias. The bias review teams of 35 states included more than one disability representative and these individuals represented a variety of disability categories (see Table 7).

States that indicated "other" for either content or bias review generally provided additional detail about the disability representatives and often indicated that there was variation across assessments in the disability representation. Two states noted that representation on alternate assessment committees is more prevalent than on regular assessment committees.

Table 7. Representation from Disability Communities on Item Review Teams

 

Disability Representation

One Disability Representative for One Disability Categorya

One Disability Representative for All Disability Categories

More than One Representative for More Than One Disabilityb

No Disability Representation

Other

Content Review

Regular States

0

8

31

3

7

Unique States

0

1

1

0

1

Bias Review

Regular

States

0

5

35

2

6

Unique States

0

0

1

0

1

a For example, visual disability/blindness.

b For example, one person for visual impairment or blindness and one person for learning disabilities.

Note: Not all states responded to both sub-questions of this item.


Current and Emerging Issues

States have made many changes to their assessment policies and practices in response to recent changes in NCLB or IDEA regulations or guidelines. Appendix D provides details on these changes. A variety of issues have emerged as states included students with disabilities in their assessment and accountability systems. States address these in many ways.

Tracking Student Achievement Over Time

Twenty states do not have the capacity to track individual student achievement by the use of a unique student ID number. Another 20 states use these IDs to track student achievement between levels, and 18 states use it to track achievement within levels (see Table 8).

Table 8. Tracking Individual Student Academic Achievement Across Years

State

Unable to Track Individual Student Achievement

Able to Track Student Achievement BETWEEN Levels

Able to Track Student Achievement WITHIN Levels

Alabama

x

   

Alaska

 

x

x

Arkansas

 

x

x

Arizona

 

x

 

California

x

   

Colorado

 

x

x

Connecticut

x

   

Delaware

 

x

x

Florida

 

x

x

Georgia

x

   

Hawaii

   

n

Idaho

x

   

Illinois

x

   

Indiana

x

   

Iowa

x

   

Kansas

x

   

Kentucky

 

x

x

Louisiana

     

Maine

x

   

Maryland

x

   

Massachusetts

x

   

Michigan

 

x

x

Minnesota

     

Mississippi

 

x

x

Missouri

x

   

Montana

x

   

Nebraska

x

   

Nevada

     

New Hampshire

 

x

x

New Jersey

     

New Mexico

 

x

 

New York

 

x

 

North Carolina

 

x

x

North Dakota

x

   

Ohio

 

x

x

Oklahoma

x

   

Oregon

x

   

Pennsylvania

     

Rhode Island

 

x

x

South Carolina

 

x

x

South Dakota

x

   

Tennessee

     

Texas

 

x

x

Utah

 

x

x

Vermont

x

   

Virginia

   

x

Washington

     

West Virginia

 

x

 

Wisconsin

 

x

x

Wyoming

     

Totals

20

20

18

Note: Guam and the Marshall Islands indicated that they are unable to track individual student achievement. American Samoa indicated that it is able to track student achievement between levels.

The states that tracked individual student achievement across years did so for different reasons (see Figure 8). The most frequently cited reason was to get a better understanding of which students are making gains (or not making gains) and why, and to improve instruction and assessments. Several states tracked student achievement to build a foundation for eventual use of growth models for accountability purposes, or to support current use of growth models. Twenty states did not track individual student achievement across years.

Figure 8. Reasons States Track Individual Student Academic Achievement Across Years

Sixteen states track the performance of students with disabilities who consistently perform poorly on the state’s regular assessment (see Figure 9). Some of the ways they track performance is by disaggregating data by subgroups and plotting the spread of their scores against those of general education students. Several states that responded "other" indicated that either they had the capacity to do the analysis but did not, or that some school districts track performance over time but that the state does not.

Figure 9. States that Track Achievement of Poor Performers Over Time

 

Analyzing Assessment Performance by Test Items

Eighteen states analyzed state assessment performance of students with disabilities by test item (through such techniques as differential item functioning—DIF). Some states responded "other" and indicated that this type of analysis was done for some assessments or by some school districts in the state, but not at the state department of education (see Figure 10).

Figure 10. Analysis by Test Item of State Assessment Performance of Students with Disabilities

 

Disaggregating Data by Primary Disability Category

According to survey responses from both 2005 and 2007, fewer states appear to be disaggregating assessment results by primary disability category in 2007 than in 2005 (see Table 9). One state said that due to low "n" sizes it keeps this information internal. Two states indicated "other," and said that the information was downloadable and available on the state department of education Web site.

Table 9. Disaggregation by Primary Disability Category

Assessment

2005

2007

State disaggregates assessment results by primary disability category for at least one assessment

21

17

Regular Assessment

N/A

14

Alternate Assessment based on Grade-Level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS)

N/A

2

Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)

N/A

2

Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAS)

N/A

15

State disaggregates by primary disability category only in response to special request

10

4

State does not disaggregate any assessment results by primary disability category

19

27

Other

0

2

N/A = NCEO did not collect this information on the 2005 survey.

Note: None of the unique states that responded to the survey indicated that they disaggregated assessment results by primary disability category.

 

Alternate Assessments Based on Grade-Level Achievement Standards

Eight states indicated that they had an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards during the 2006-07 school year (see Table 10).

Accommodations Use and Policy

Wide variations exist in how states record assessment accommodations actually used on test day (see Table 11). In both the 2005 and 2007 surveys, more than half of the states indicated they have a place on test documents to record the specific accommodations used by a student for the regular assessment. A few states also indicated that they record accommodations used on alternate assessments, though most states reported that they either do not allow accommodations on alternate assessments or the alternate assessment of interest is not offered. Appendix E provides individual state responses on the recording of assessment accommodations.

Table 10. States Indicating They Have an Alternate Assessment based on Grade-Level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS)

Alternate Assessment based on Grade Level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS)

Indiana
Massachusetts
Montana
New Jersey
North Carolina
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia 

Table 11. Number of States that Record Accommodations ACTUALLY Used on Test Day, by Assessment

Manner of Recording

Regular Assessment a

Alternate Assessment based on Grade-Level Achievement Standards
(AA-GLAS)

Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)

Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards
(AA-AAS)

Number of accommodated/non-accommodated administrations recorded

29

0

2

7

Number of standard/non-standard accommodations recorded

19

1

0

2

Category or type recorded (e.g., Presentation, Response)

17

0

1

3

Specific accommodation recorded (e.g., Read Aloud, Extended Time)

29

1

3

5

State does not record allowed accommodations for, or does not offer, this type of assessment

4

25

26

14

Other, please describe below

4

6

3

16

a The total number of responses adds up to greater than 50 for the regular assessment because it is possible for states to record accommodations in more than one way.

Note: American Samoa, Guam, and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands record accommodations by specific accommodations for the regular assessment.

States use a variety of strategies to reduce the number of invalid test results. As seen in Table 12, some states provide information to instructors and teachers through written direction, workshops, and training about how students who use modifications/non-standard accommodations will be counted.

Table 12. State Approaches to Reducing Invalid Test Results

Approach

Regular States

Unique
States

Provide information to instructors and teachers through workshops and training

13

1

Provide written direction through manuals and other testing materials

9

0

GSEG grant put to use to review accommodations guidelines

2

1

Teachers alerted of new NCLB mandated procedures

1

0

Participation terminology changed to reflect new policy

1

0

Develop AA-MAS for students who use modifications

1

0

Effort being made to deflate number using modifications

1

0

Allow expanded support for students with significant cognitive disabilities

1

0

Currently conducting activities related to state standard setting

0

1

No changes necessary, currently policy is in compliance

12

0

Do not allow modifications

8

0

Note: One regular state did not respond to this question.


Preferred Forms of Technical Assistance

The forms of technical assistance that are preferred by states are shown in Figure 11. Approaches that states preferred in 2007 included "how to" documents, conference calls on hot topics, and descriptions of assessments in other states. Fewer states in 2007 than in 2005 selected consultation and review of state materials or information on the Internet.

Figure 11. Technical Assistance Preferences of States


Appendix A

Practices Deemed Most Responsible for Narrowing the Achievement Gap

States

Emphasis on Inclusion and Access to the Curriculum

Use of Student Assessment Data to Inform Decision Making

A Pervasive Emphasis on Curriculum Alignment With State Standards

Culture and Practices That Support High Standards and Student Achievement

Effective Leadership is Essential to Success

Unified Practice Supported by Targeted Professional Development

Alabama

x

x

x

x

x

x

Alaska

           

Arizona

 

x

x

     

Arkansas

x

x

x

   

x

California

x

x

x

x

x

x

Colorado

x

x

 

x

 

x

Connecticut

           

Delaware

x

x

   

x

 

Florida

x

x

 

x

   

Georgia

x

x

x

x

x

x

Hawaii

           

Idaho

x

x

x

x

x

x

Illinois

           

Indiana

x

x

x

 

x

 

Iowa

           

Kansas

 

x

x

   

x

Kentucky

x

x

x

x

x

x

Louisiana

x

x

x

x

 

x

Maine

x

x

x

x

 

x

Maryland

x

x

x

     

Massachusetts

x

x

x

x

x

x

Michigan

x

x

x

x

   

Minnesota

           

Mississippi

           

Missouri

x

x

x

   

x

Montana

x

x

 

x

x

x

Nebraska

x

x

x

x

x

x

Nevada

           

New Hampshire

           

New Jersey

 

x

x

     

New Mexico

x

x

 

x

   

New York

           

North Carolina

x

x

x

x

 

x

North Dakota

x

x

x

 

x

 

Ohio

           

Oklahoma

x

 

x

x

   

Oregon

 

x

x

     

Pennsylvania

x

x

       

Rhode Island

 

x

x

x

 

x

South Carolina

 

x

   

x

 

South Dakota

x

 

x

     

Tennessee

x

x

x

x

x

x

Texas

x

x

x

x

x

 

Utah

x

x

   

x

 

Vermont

           

Virginia

x

x

x

x

x

x

Washington

   

x

x

   

West Virginia

x

x

x

x

x

x

Wisconsin

x

x

x

x

x

x

Wyoming

x

x

     

x

Total Regular States

31

35

29

23

18

21

             

Unique States

           

American Samoa

x

x

x

x

x

x

Guam

x

x

x

x

x

x

Northern Mariana Islands

           

Total Unique States

2

2

2

2

2

2

 

States

Access to Resources to Support Key Initiatives

Effective Systems to Support Curri-culum Alignment

Flexible Leaders and Staff Who Work Effectively in a Dynamic Environ-ment

A Well-Disciplined Academic and Social Environ-ment

Effective Staff Recruitment, Retention, and Deployment

Achieve-ment Gap has Yet to Narrow

Other

Alabama

x

x

x

x

x

   

Alaska

           

x

Arizona

             

Arkansas

x

           

California

x

x

x

x

x

   

Colorado

             

Connecticut

         

x

 

Delaware

x

           

Florida

             

Georgia

x

x

         

Hawaii

         

x

 

Idaho

x

   

x

     

Illinois

           

x

Indiana

   

x

x

     

Iowa

         

x

 

Kansas

 

x

         

Kentucky

 

x

x

       

Louisiana

   

x

       

Maine

x

           

Maryland

             

Massachusetts

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

Michigan

             

Minnesota

         

x

 

Mississippi

         

x

 

Missouri

 

x

         

Montana

             

Nebraska

 

x

x

x

x

   

Nevada

         

x

 

New Hampshire

         

x

 

New Jersey

             

New Mexico

   

x

x

     

New York

             

North Carolina

x

x

         

North Dakota

       

x

   

Ohio

         

x

x

Oklahoma

             

Oregon

             

Pennsylvania

           

x

Rhode Island

       

x

   

South Carolina

     

x

     

South Dakota

x

           

Tennessee

x

x

x

 

x

   

Texas

x

 

x

       

Utah

x

x

x

       

Vermont

         

x

 

Virginia

 

x

x

       

Washington

             

West Virginia

x

x

x

 

x

   

Wisconsin

x

x

x

x

x

   

Wyoming

x

         

x

Total Regular States

16

14

14

9

9

9

6

               

Unique States

             

American Samoa

   

x

x

     

Guam

 

x

x

 

x

   

Northern Mariana Islands

         

x

 

Total Unique States

0

1

2

1

1

1

0


Appendix B

Ways States Document that Assessment Systems are Fair and Accessible for ELLs with Disabilities

States

Provide Written Policy

Train Personnel on Use

Convene Review Committees With ELL Representation

Monitor Personnel at the District and School Levels

Provide Evidence That ELLs With Disabilities Were Considered During Test Development

Conduct Data-Based Bias Studies

Conduct Studies to Determine Impact on Test Scores

Alabama

x

x

x

x

     

Alaska

x

x

 

x

 

x

 

Arizona

x

x

         

Arkansas

x

x

x

x

     

California

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

Colorado

x

           

Connecticut

x

x

x

x

     

Delaware

x

x

x

       

Florida

 

x

 

x

     

Georgia

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Hawaii

 

x

x

       

Idaho

x

x

x

x

     

Illinois

x

x

x

x

     

Indiana

x

x

     

x

x

Iowa

x

           

Kansas

x

x

x

 

x

 

x

Kentucky

 

x

 

x

     

Louisiana

x

x

x

x

x

   

Maine

x

x

x

x

   

x

Maryland

x

x

x

       

Massachusetts

x

x

 

x

     

Michigan

x

x

x

     

x

Minnesota

x

 

x

   

x

 

Mississippi

 

x

 

x

     

Missouri

       

x

   

Montana

x

x

x

 

x

x

 

Nebraska

     

x

     

Nevada

   

x

       

New Hampshire

   

x

       

New Jersey

x

x

x

   

x

 

New Mexico

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

New York

x

x

x

x

x

 

x

North Carolina

x

x

x

x

x

   

North Dakota

x

x

         

Ohio

x

x

x

 

x

x

x

Oklahoma

 

x

         

Oregon

   

x

       

Pennsylvania

x

x

         

Rhode Island

x

x

x

       

South Carolina

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

South Dakota

x

x

x

       

Tennessee

x

x

 

x

 

x

x

Texas

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Utah

x

x

x

x

x

   

Vermont

x

x

x

       

Virginia

x

 

x

x

     

Washington

x

           

West Virginia

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Wisconsin

x

x

x

x

x

x

 

Wyoming

x

x

 

x

x

x

x

Total Regular State

40

40

33

25

16

14

13

               

Unique States

             

American Samoa

             

Guam

             

Northern Mariana Islands

             

Total Unique States

0

0

0

0

0

0

0


Appendix C

Elements of Universal Design Addressed in the Development Process of Regular Assessments

States

RFP for Test Develop-ment

Test Construc-tion

Expert Review

Think-aloud Method

Statisti-cal Analysis

Final Review

Universal Design Not Ad-dressed

Other

Alabama

 

x

           

Alaska

x

x

x

   

x

   

Arizona

x

x

x

   

x

   

Arkansas

x

x

           

California

x

x

x

   

x

   

Colorado

x

x

x

 

x

x

 

x

Connecticut

x

x

x

         

Delaware

x

       

x

   

Florida

x

x

x

   

x

   

Georgia

x

x

x

         

Hawaii

         

x

   

Idaho

x

       

x

   

Illinois

x

x

     

x

   

Indiana

   

x

         

Iowa

               

Kansas

x

x

x

         

Kentucky

x

x

x

 

x

x

   

Louisiana

x

x

x

   

x

 

x

Maine

 

x

           

Maryland

x

x

     

x

   

Massachusetts

x

 

x

   

x

 

x

Michigan

x

x

x

 

x

x

 

x

Minnesota

x

x

           

Mississippi

x

             

Missouri

x

x

x

 

x

x

   

Montana

x

x

     

x

   

Nebraska

               

Nevada

           

x

 

New Hampshire

 

x

x

       

x

New Jersey

x

x

           

New Mexico

x

x

x

 

x

x

   

New York

x

x

x

   

x

   

North Carolina

x

x

x

 

x

     

North Dakota

x

x

x

   

x

   

Ohio

x

x

     

x

 

x

Oklahoma

x

             

Oregon

x

x

x

         

Pennsylvania

x

x

x

         

Rhode Island

x

x

x

x

x

x

   

South Carolina

x

x

x

   

x

   

South Dakota

 

x

x

   

x

   

Tennessee

x

x

x

 

x

x

   

Texas

x

x

x

   

x

   

Utah

x

x

x

       

x

Vermont

x

x

x

 

x

x

 

x

Virginia

 

x

x

   

x

   

Washington

x

 

x

   

x

   

West Virginia

x

x

     

x

   

Wisconsin

x

x

x

   

x

   

Wyoming

x

x

 

x

       

 Total Regular States

40

39

31

2

9

30

1

8

                 

Unique States

               

American Samoa

x

 

x

 

x

x

 

x

Guam

               

Northern Mariana Islands

 

x

     

x

   

Total Unique States

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

1


Appendix D

Changes to State Assessment Policies or Practices in Response to Recent Changes in NCLB or IDEA Regulations or Guidelines

States

 Comments

Alabama

We are currently revising our alternate assessment as a result of NCLB.

Alaska

Full grade range tested for the alternate assessment (3-10).

Arizona

The state board has dictated an investigation of the use of calculators on the math assessment in response to LEAs missing AYP for participation when a calculator has been used. The proposed alternate assessment against grade-level standards is apt to be structured very differently than the current paper/pencil test to build accommodations into the test from the start.

Arkansas

No response

California

None

Colorado

Based on feedback from peer review, a change has occurred in the development process and issues around accommodations for ELL students. Support for these changes has come from stakeholders from around the state during item/bias review. Also, there has been a multi-year study with research organizations regarding plain language and Universal Design to ensure ELL students have access to the assessment.

Connecticut

(1) Monitoring and reporting of accommodations; (2) Alignment to grade-level content; (3) Increase in grades being tested; (4) Science portion has been added.

Delaware

No considerable changes due to these laws.

Florida

None

Georgia

None

Hawaii

None

Idaho

The state assessment was redesigned when a new test vender began. Elements of Universal Design were emphasized in the development of the assessment. Representatives from subgroups have been clearly involved in the development and review of test items. State data reporting systems have improved in order to assist districts and schools to identify areas which need improvement in order for students to show proficiency.

Illinois

None

Indiana

None

Iowa

No response

Kansas

05-06 was the first year for existing assessments, few if any changes were or appear to be necessary to date. (1) Revisions were made to Accommodations Manual; ( 2) A realignment of extended to general standards was completed.

Kentucky

We have added the following assessments to comply with NCLB: Reading grades 3, 5, 6 and 8; Math grades 3, 4, 6 and 7. The number of constructed response items in Reading and Math has been reduced. We revised our alternate assessment to align with grade level standards. We have adapted an LEP assessment that measures academic language.

Louisiana

Development of new assessments that address state grade level expectations (not NRT), statewide assessment of English language development – previously districts administered various assessments and reported results to the state; new alternate assessment that assesses grade level expectations for the 2%; in process of revising the alternate assessment for the students with the most significant disabilities – the 1%; developing extended standards; increased guidance and documents to assist in selection of accommodations; revision of general access guide to the general curriculum.

Maine

We eliminated one accommodation and have completed alignment studies for all of our assessments. A second component (Math augmentation) designed primarily to measure knowledge and skills related to data analysis, statistics, and probability, was added to the high school assessment. The basis of our assessments changed in 05-06 (to grade-level expectations in grades 3-8) and as a result, we went through standard setting for the MEA. Standard setting on our alternate assessment will be completed in June, 2007. It was last done in 2004.

Maryland

None

Massachusetts

New tests and alternate assessments were added at each grade in ELA, Math, and Science and Technology/Engineering to comply with NCLB. An interim formula was developed and has been approved for calculating a performance index for students taking alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards.

Michigan

Not recently.

Minnesota

For 2007, Minnesota has redeveloped its alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards to conform to NCLB requirements for alignment with grade-level academic content standards. For 2007, Minnesota has redeveloped policies for participation for students with disabilities in the statewide assessment program, including the clarification that only students with disabilities who meet IDEA regulations (not students identified under Section 504) may receive an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. The accommodations section of the 2006-2007 edition of the Procedures Manual was redeveloped to be more consistent with the CCSSO 2005 Accommodations Manual, including an increased emphasis on the importance of alignment of test accommodations with instructional accommodations. Development of an IEP Team Guide to Statewide Assessments.

Mississippi

In compliance with Federal regulations, the scores of newly arrived English Language Learner (ELL) students may be excluded from Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) calculations.

Missouri

None in the last year.

Montana

Under NCLB, inclusion of additional grades accompanied by a performance-based assessment in all tested grades and content areas.

Nebraska

Language acquisition assessments are no longer used to report performance on reading standards for ELL.

Nevada

 No response

New Hampshire

Not since 2005.

New Jersey

Reporting policies have changed to reflect NCLB mandates. The state is making changes in the Alternate Proficiency Assessment in response to Peer Review.

New Mexico

Our state rules are now more in line with NCLB. Our AYP calculations and test development expectations certainly fluctuate with the regulations published by U.S. ED, most notably the recently published 2% regulations.

New York

LEP students who have resided in the U.S. for more than 1 year must participate in the ELA exam.

North Carolina

NC has had alternate achievement standards in place since last year. The new final regulations have supported what we have done for this assessment. The information included in the recent final regulations regarding using retest scores for reporting will affect us. In addition, the 1% and 2% caps and combinations, thereof, will need to be looked at.

North Dakota

We put into place the Alternate Assessment based on modified achievement standards (2%) in the fall of 2005. Our assessment accommodations practices and reporting are more specific.

Ohio

We designed our assessment system beginning in 2002 to be NCLB compliant. We made some small adjustments to our alternate assessments as a result of NCLB peer review (PLDs for achievement levels).

Oklahoma

Oklahoma developed an alternate assessment aligned to modified achievement standards.

Oregon

Following the federal peer review systemic changes were made to the assessment system to ensure that all students will be assessed according to grade level content standards.

Pennsylvania

PA routinely reviews and updates all required policies and practices to comply with all Federal regulations.

Rhode Island

None

South Carolina

We have moved to on-grade-level assessment. Redesigned the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards to align with grade-level content. We are conducting research on the impact of accommodations on the construct tested. We are exploring implementation of an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards.

South Dakota

Alternate Assessment based on alternate achievement standards only allowed for those meeting criteria otherwise non-participants, previously could take assessment but scored below basic.

Tennessee

The Alternate Assessment (1%): (1) Development of Alternate Assessment Standards and Alternate Performance Indicators; ( 2) Assessment primarily measures student progress towards alternate Assessment Standards. Previously, Alternate Assessment measured more program accountability.

Texas

We have completely changed our alternate assessments from the ground up.

Utah

Utah has the Assessment Participation and Accommodations Policy which was completed in August of 2006. Each year it will be revised.

Vermont

We have been forced to abandon our performance level testing program; we updated our alternate assessment of alternate standards (that pre-dated NCLB), developed a new set of alternate grade expectations, and reset our achievement standards.

Virginia

No response

Washington

We have added assessments for modified achievement standards to our recent RFP release (August 2007). We have revised the alternate assessment (portfolio) and developed extensions to the grade level expectations (standards) for the alternate assessment. We have increased the available accommodations. We included accommodated test forms in our recent RFP release.

West Virginia

We have Closing the Achievement Gap schools; districts develop student achievement improvement plans based on 3rd grade reading proficiency. State has special education monitoring procedures.

Wisconsin

We are in the process of developing a new performance based alternate assessment. This test will be a change from a portfolio-based assessment to a task-specific assessment where teachers will record student responses to a standardized set of test items.

Wyoming

Yes

Unique States

 

American Samoa

With the NCLB, DOE have been in the process of setting standards, provide assessment to align with the standards, assisting Special Education in Standards development, assessment development based on daily activities from functional to standards based, and school leaders in taking the lead as assessment leaders or Data Stewards. Results now must be public information where before it was kept at the school level or DOE.

Guam

Through the assistance of the TA received from the GSEG project, GPSS has changed its monitoring procedures to report better 618 data for students with disabilities, to include the development of improvement activities focused on increasing student outcomes. Continued work is on-going to review and revise the current assessment policies and procedures.

Northern Mariana Islands

Practices have changed to better identify students with disabilities, and assessment reporting methods. Efforts are on-going to change alternate achievement standards & assessment to meet NCLB & IDEA.


Appendix E

States that Record Accommodations ACTUALLY Used on Test Day

Regular Assessment

Number of Accommodated/Non-Accommodated Recorded

Number of Standard/Non-Standard Recorded

 

Category or Type Recorded

Specific Accommodation Recorded

Not Allowed for this Assessment or Assessment Not Offered

Other

Alaska
Arkansas
Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Mississippi
North Carolina
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Nevada
New York
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia

Arizona
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
New Hampshire
Nevada
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia

 

Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Minnesota
Missouri
North Dakota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
South Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
North Carolina
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

Iowa
Indiana
Oregon
Tennessee

Alabama
Hawaii
Maryland
Michigan

29

19

17

29

4

4

           

Unique States

         

Guam
Northern Mariana Islands

 
 

Guam

American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands

 
   

2

0

1

3

0

0

 

Alternate Assessment on Grade Level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS)

Number of Accommodated/Non-Accommodated Recorded

Number of Standard/ Non-Standard Recorded

Category or Type Recorded

Specific Accommoda-tions Recorded

Not Allowed for this Assessment or Assessment Not Offered

Other

 

Virginia

 

 

Louisiana

 

Alaska
Arizona
California
Delaware
Florida Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Massachusetts
Montana
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Oregon

0

1

0

1

25

6

           

Unique States

         

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Alternate Assessment on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)

Number of Accommodated/Non-Accommodated Recorded

Number of Standard/Non-Standard Recorded

Category or Type Recorded

Specific Accommodation Recorded

Not Allowed for this Assessment or Assessment Not Offered

Other

North Carolina
Oklahoma

 
 

Texas

Kansas
North Carolina
Texas

 

Alaska
Arizona
California
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Massachusetts
New York
North Dakota

2

0

1

3

26

3

           

Unique States

         

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Alternate Assessment on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAS)

Number of Accommodated/Non-Accommodated Recorded

Number of Standard/Non-Standard Recorded

Category or Type Recorded

Specific Accommodation Recorded

Not Allowed for this Assessment or Assessment Not Offered

Other

Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
West Virginia

 

Colorado
Virginia

 

Texas
Washington
West Virginia

 

Colorado
Kansas
Kentucky
Texas
West Virginia

 

California
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Wyoming

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Massachusetts
Maine
Michigan
Montana
North Carolina
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Utah

7

2

3

5

14

16

           

Unique States

         

Guam

 

Guam

Guam

Northern Mariana Islands

 

1

0

1

1

1

0

 

© 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 May 30, 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.