NCEO Logo
Bookmark and Share

Achieving Transparency in the Public Reporting
of 2006-2007 Assessment Results

Technical Report 53

Debra Albus • Martha Thurlow • Chris Bremer

July 2009

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

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Bremer, C. (2009). Achieving transparency in the public reporting of 2006-2007 assessment results (Technical Report 53). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.


Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Overview
Method
Results
Communicating Participation in 2006-2007
Communicating Performance in 2006-2007
Selected Disaggregated Results of Regular Assessment Performance
Alternate Assessment Performance Results
Other Information Collected for 2006-2007
Summary and Discussion
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I


Executive Summary

States report on the participation and performance of students with disabilities by (a) submitting annual performance reports (APRs) to the U.S. Department of Education, and (b) publicly reporting state assessment data via their Web sites and other communication avenues. Both APRs and public reports provide important information, although the two may be slightly different in how the data are presented.

This is the eleventh report analyzing the public reporting of disaggregated data for students with disabilities by the National Center on Educational Outcomes. This analysis, for school year 2006-2007, also marks the fifth data cycle since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001.

For the 2006-2007 year, there were increases in the number of the states publicly reporting disaggregated data for students with disabilities for regular assessments and alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). The number of states reporting participation and performance online for students with disabilities for all regular assessments within NCLB accountability increased from 39 to 46 states. This means that states reported disaggregated participation and performance data online for 92% of all regular assessments within NCLB accountability systems. Two states reported only performance. One state reported participation and performance for some assessments, and one state was not counted as publicly reporting because data were not reported in a manner similar to those of other students.

For AA-AAS, the number of states reporting participation and performance also increased, from 24 states to 36. States with no data reported online for AA-AAS dropped by about half, from 13 states for the 2005-2006 school year to 7 for 2006-2007. Five states reported only performance, and two states reported only participation.

For unique states, including special territories, the reporting of online disaggregated data decreased compared to the previous year for both regular assessments and AA-AAS. Unique states reporting participation and performance for regular assessments slipped from two states to one, and no unique states reported online for AA-AAS. One unique state e-mailed reports for both the regular assessment and AA-AAS, but because these appeared to be tables for the federal Annual Performance Report (APR) requirements, these were not counted in this analysis.

The most common approaches used by states to communicate participation and performance data for 2006-2007 regular assessments and AA-AAS remained the same as for 2005-2006, with some changes within the less common categories of reporting. Across assessments, the most common way to report participation was by number assessed (34 states for regular assessment, and 29 states for AA-AAS). The most common way of reporting performance was by the percent of students in each achievement level (34 states for regular assessment and 28 states for AA-AAS). As in previous years, data for reading and mathematics showed that performance for students with disabilities was lower in most states compared to general education students. However, we observed slightly smaller average gaps between the two groups for the data sets available in 2006-2007 compared to 2005-2006 at each representative grade level.”

The number of states reporting disaggregated data for students who used accommodations on state assessments increased to 16 states for 2006-2007 over 10 states for 2005-2006. Information on accommodations spanned different state assessments, including AA-AAS (n=1), norm and criterion referenced regular assessments (n=16), and an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). One state did not identify the assessments included in its accommodations data.


Overview

The 2006-2007 school year was the eighth annual reporting period since disaggregating the performance of students with disabilities on state and district-wide assessments was required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It is the fifth reporting period since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and the eleventh in a series of National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) reports documenting state public reporting practices.

Historically, the number of states publicly reporting disaggregated participation and performance data for all regular assessments has increased from 28 states before the passage of NCLB (2000-2001), to 39 states for assessments within NCLB accountability systems in 2005-2006 (Thurlow, Bremer, & Albus, 2008). In the intervening years, the number has fluctuated some, from 36, 35, and 36 in 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005, respectively (Klein, Wiley, & Thurlow, 2006; Thurlow & Wiley, 2004; Thurlow, Wiley, & Bielinski, 2003; Wiley, Thurlow, & Klein, 2005; VanGetson & Thurlow, 2007).

The number of states reporting disaggregated participation and performance data for all alternate assessments had decreased from the high reported in 2004-2005 of 42 states to 28 states in 2005-2006. This change in reporting may be related to changes in federal policies for reporting to the U.S. Department of Education and to our procedures, in which we did not count Annual Performance Report (APR) data as publicly reported data (see Thurlow, Bremer, & Albus, 2008).


Method

In January 2008, project staff began searching state education Web sites for posted reports with disaggregated data for students with disabilities for school year 2006-2007. States are required to report their data in the fall, following the assessment year (e.g., 2006-2007 data are reported in fall, 2007), but states often revise data through the end of the year. Thus, January of the year after the school year in which assessments are administered is the month when almost all states have their corrected and verified data on their Web sites.

States included the 50 “regular” states and 11 “unique” states (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Education, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Department of Defense Education Affairs, District of Columbia, Federated States of Micronesia, Territory of Guam, Republic of Palau, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands). During this time, information was collected both on the actual participation and performance data reported by states for students with disabilities and descriptive information on how the states reported those data. The data collection included all regular and alternate state assessments within and outside the NCLB accountability systems, with the exception of assessments designed specifically for bilingual or English language learners.

After data were collected, individual state summary tables were created for verification in mid February. These summaries included only the descriptive information on how the state reported participation and performance. See Appendix A for a sample letter and summary table used in the verification process with state assessment directors.

The verification process occurred in two waves between March and May of 2008. In the first wave, letters and summary tables were mailed to state assessment directors. Twenty-one regular states responded to our request for verification in the first wave. In the second wave, after data tables were revised based on feedback, letters were sent to all state directors of Special Education (see Appendix B). Twenty-one regular states and one unique state responded to the second request for help in verification, with some of the same states from the first wave confirming data a second time. We continued to follow-up with checks of state Web sites into the summer and fall for states that might have posted later. Finally, we completed data entry and double checks for accuracy.

In this analysis of states’ publicly reported data, we clarify whether reporting was on assessments used for NCLB accountability purposes. Also, in presenting participation rate data in this report, we sometimes counted a state as reporting rates when the state provided numbers that allowed rates to be calculated; at other times we used a stricter criterion and counted states as reporting rates only if they reported percentages. We are clear when reporting these counts which criterion we used.

State assessments administered to students with disabilities who are also English language learners or bilingual students (e.g., SABE/2 in California, IMAGE in Illinois, etc.) are not addressed in this report. The public reporting of these data will be included in a separate report focusing on English language learners with disabilities. It will cover all state assessments for 2006-2007.

As noted by Thurlow et al. (2008), the definition for what is counted as public reporting has been adjusted from earlier years of reporting. Starting with the 2005-2006 school year, state Annual Performance Reports (APRs) and State Performance Plans (SPPs) are not considered typical public reports that a state creates to meet the requirement to report to the public data on students with disabilities in the same manner and with the same frequency as it reports for all students.

The definition of regular students and students with disabilities is the same as in previous reports. “Regular student” refers to a population that might include all students assessed or a further disaggregation to all students without disabilities, depending on the state. The definition should be considered in interpreting the data, because we compare “regular student” data with data for students with disabilities. Further, the term “students with disabilities” may also vary by state, with some states reporting only students with IEPs, and others reporting a combination of students with IEPs and 504 Plans.

When we examined gaps between all students and students with disabilities, we employed the same procedures as in the past, choosing representative grades to present data for elementary, middle, and high school. For our examination of gaps, we chose grades 4, 8, and 10. If a state did not have data for a grade, we chose one grade below. If that grade was not available, we chose the grade above. Further, we focused on reading and mathematics content areas, consistent with previous analyses. Information on how states reported other content areas is in the appendices.


Results

Characteristics of State Assessment Systems

A list of general state assessments for 2006-2007 is located in Appendix C. It includes all 50 regular states and the 11 unique states, with information on the name of each assessment, grades and content areas assessed, whether the state had publicly available disaggregated participation or performance data for students with disabilities for 2006-2007, and whether the results of each assessment are used for NCLB purposes.

We identified 106 statewide assessments for the 50 regular states for 2006-2007. Of the 11 states that indicated they had administered a norm-referenced test (NRT), five states used the ITBS (Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, Nevada, and Utah), three states used TerraNova/Cat/6 (Alaska, Arizona, and California), two used the SAT 10 (Alabama and Florida), and two states used other less common assessments such as EXPLORE, PLAN (Kentucky) and Direct Writing Assessment (DWA) (Utah). Nine other states used NRTs augmented with criterion referenced items (Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota). All other assessments were EXIT and criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) unique to each state, except for a few that were used commonly across a small group of states such as the NECAP assessment used by three states (New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont). Utah administered five state assessments in 2006-2007, which was the highest number of any state.

In addition to the 50 regular states, we also included the 11 unique states. For these 11, we had specific names for 9 state assessments. The Stanford Achievement Test (SAT-9 or SAT-10) was used by four states (American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, District of Columbia, and Guam). Although the unique states predominantly used NRTs, some also indicated CRTs. Only one unique state (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) used more than one regular assessment, employing both an NRT and a CRT. For the Bureau of Indian Education, students participate in assessments in their state of residence and thus should be included in the reporting systems in the state in which they reside.

Figure 1a displays the 106 assessments found for the 50 states (both in and outside NCLB accountability system) by type: criterion-referenced tests, norm-referenced tests, exit exams used as a requirement for graduation (EXIT), and augmented NRTs with state-developed CRT items. Of the unique states, not graphed due to few states reporting, the District of Columbia reported data for its CRT.

Figure 1a. Total Number of Regular Assessments In and Outside NCLB Accountability Systems by Assessment Type (N=106)

Figure 1a 

Note: Assessments are counted by assessment name. If a state had different names for CRTs by elementary/middle and high school these are counted separately.

Overall, the most common assessment type in 2006-2007 was the CRT at 61% (N=64), followed by Exit assessments at 18% (N=19), NRTs at 12% (N=13), and augmented NRT/CRTs at 9% (N=9). Comparing the percent of each assessment type to that in 2005-2006, CRTs made up 3% fewer of the total compared to 2005-2006, and EXIT assessments made up 3% more. The other assessments stayed nearly the same.

Figure 1b displays the same information as Figure 1a except that it includes only those assessments within NCLB accountability systems. Of the 78 assessments, CRTs made up 70%, EXITs made up 17%, NRT/CRTs made up 12%, and NRTs made up only 1%. For unique states, the District of Columbia reported on its CRT, which is used for NCLB accountability.

Figure 1b. Number of Regular Assessments in NCLB Accountability Systems by Assessment Type (N=78)

Figure 1b 

Note: Assessments are counted by assessment name. If a state had different names for CRTs by elementary/middle and high school these are counted separately.

 

States That Reported Disaggregated Regular Assessment Data for Students with Disabilities

Figure 2 summarizes state reporting of participation and performance data for students with disabilities for regular assessments within NCLB accountability systems in the 50 states. These assessments refer to the state content assessments based on grade-level achievement standards. Showing increases from 2005-2006, 46 states reported participation and performance for all regular assessments (92%), up from just 78% in 2005-2006. With most states fully reporting participation and performance data, just two states reported only performance data, and only one state reported participation and performance data for some of its regular assessments for 2006-2007. This represents a 3% to 7% decrease for each of the categories reflecting less than full data, and the near elimination of states with no assessment data publicly reported. Only one state was categorized as not having data publicly reported in a manner similar to that for all other students. This state (Wyoming) did have disaggregated data posted in an Excel Spreadsheet on the same Web page as a report that included all general education students, but the way in which the data were reported was not the same as data were reported for general education students.

Figure 2. Disaggregated Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities on Regular Assessments in NCLB Accountability Systems within the 50 Regular States

Figure 2 

Figure 3 displays in map form the data summarized in Figure 2, by state. Clearly, the map shows nearly consistent full reporting of disaggregated reporting for students with disabilities.

Figure 3. States Reporting 2006-2007 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Assessments in NCLB Accountability Systems*

Figure 3 

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

Figure 4 shows the prevalence of full reporting of participation and performance data by assessment type, across the 50 regular states. The figure shows that three of the four assessment types within NCLB accountability systems had both participation and performance data reported. CRTs, with participation and performance reported for 49 of 55 tests, lagged behind somewhat at 89%. NRT, NRT/CRT, and EXIT assessments within NCLB accountability systems were fully reported at 100%.

Figure 4. Percent of Regular Assessments in NCLB Accountability Systems Reporting Participation and Performance by Assessment Type

Figure 4 

Figure 5 is a map showing similar information to Figure 3, except that it is based on all state mandated assessments in and outside of NCLB accountability systems. Comparing this map to Figure 3 shows that there is more complete reporting by states on NCLB accountability assessments.

Figure 5. States reporting 2006-2007 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Assessments In and Outside the NCLB Accountability System

Figure 5 

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

 

Unique States That Reported Disaggregated Regular Assessment Data for Students with Disabilities

In 2006-2007, fewer unique states publicly reported disaggregated regular assessment data, continuing a trend of the previous years. Down from six states reporting in 2004-2005, there were two states reporting data publicly in 2005-2006, and just one state reporting for 2006-2007 (see Table 1). One unique state (Palau) did provide data to NCEO staff directly, but because these data were APR reported data, they were not counted as publicly reported data presented in the same way and with the same frequency as data presented for students without disabilities.

Table 1. Unique States Reporting Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on Regular Assessments

Unique States

Participation

Performance

American Samoa

No

No

Bureau of Indian Affairs

No

No

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

No

No

Department of Defense Education Activity

No

No

District of Columbia

Yesa

Yesa

Federated States of Micronesia

No

No

Guam

No

No

Palau

Nob

Nob

Puerto Rico

No

No

Republic of the Marshall Islands

No

No

Virgin Islands

No

No

a The District of Columbia reported data by grade ranges.
b Palau sent data, But they appeared to be APR tables, which were not counted for this analysis.

States That Reported Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Data for Students with Disabilities

All 50 regular states indicated using at least one alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Some states had additional alternate assessments, including alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (Kansas, North Carolina, and Oklahoma) and those based on grade level achievement standards (Louisiana, North Carolina, and Virginia). As the criteria for various alternate assessments became clearer, some alternate assessments were reclassified (e.g., Louisiana’s LAA2 alternate was later considered an alternate based on modified achievement standards). One alternate assessment (Washington) was classified as “other” because it was unclear as to what type of achievement standards were used. All alternate assessments, except Washington’s, were categorized as used within NCLB accountability systems. The state with the highest number of alternate assessments was North Carolina (N=4); this is consistent with the findings for 2005-2006. Also, the eight states using two alternate assessments remained the same as for 2005-2006 (Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington). All of the remaining 41 states had one alternate assessment.

Figure 6 shows the number and percent of states that disaggregated participation and performance data for students with disabilities on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. There was an increase in 2006-2007 compared to 2005-2006 in the number of states reporting both participation and performance, from 24 (48%) to 36 (72%) of regular states. The number of states with no information decreased from 13 to 7, or from 26% to 14%.

Figure 6. Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards Results for Students with Disabilities in 2006-2007 for Regular 50 States*

Figure 6 

*The figure does not include state APR or SSP data.

For unique states, the total number with an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards in 2006-2007 was unclear due to the lack of information on state Web sites. In previous years, three unique states indicated using an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards for NCLB accountability purposes. In 2006-2007, no state posted data for participation and performance on an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. One state (Palau) did provide disaggregated participation and performance data on a state AA-AAS to NCEO directly; however, those data appeared to be from an APR report (see Table 2).

Table 2. Unique States Reporting Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on Alternate Assessments

Unique States

Participation

Performance

American Samoa

No

No

Bureau of Indian Affairs

No

No

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

No

No

Department of Defense Education Activity

No

No

District of Columbia

No

No

Federated States of Micronesia

No

No

Guam

No

No

Palau

Noa

Noa

Puerto Rico

No

No

Republic of the Marshall Islands

No

No

Virgin Islands

No

No

a Palau provided data directly to NCEO staff, but they appeared to be in an APR report.

Figure 7 maps the number of regular states that reported disaggregated participation and performance data for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. The number of states reporting participation and performance data for all alternate assessments for 2006-2007 was 36, an increase from 28 in the previous year. Five reported performance only (Illinois, Montana, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), two reported participation only (North Dakota and Rhode Island), and seven reported no information.

Figure 7. States Reporting 2006-2007 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards*

Figure 7

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

The decline observed in the number of states reporting alternate assessment data from 42 states in 2004-2005, to 28 in 2005-2006, was due in part to a shift in 2005-2006 to not include as public reporting “in the same way and with the same frequency” as reported for other students, those data only presented in APRs or SPPs. Further, for the 2006-2007 analysis, there is greater clarity in the types of alternate assessments based on alternate, modified, and grade level achievement standards, because of clarifications in federal regulations and technical assistance efforts. This clarity is evident in our maps and figures, which include only the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). Compared to 2005-2006, this decision may have resulted in a slight increase in states counted as reporting all participation and performance data because other types of alternates were not included with the AA-AAS in maps and figures. The small number of alternate assessments based on other types of achievement standards (grade-level or modified) were described earlier in this report; the participation and performance data for these other alternate assessments are noted in Appendix D.

None of the 11 unique states reported data on an alternate assessment. As mentioned previously, Palau did send participation and performance data to NCEO staff directly, but these data appeared to be from an APR, and was not a document prepared for the public.


Communicating Participation in 2006-2007

Regular Assessment Participation Approaches and Select Results

In this section we show the ways in which states reported participation data for regular assessments. More specifically, we describe the participation information presented to a reader of a state’s assessment report, without doing any calculations. Figure 8 focuses on the approaches taken by the 50 regular states in presenting participation data. Figure 9 shows the same approaches as Figure 8, but is based on the total number (N=78) of regular assessments in NCLB accountability systems. This information is presented by state in Appendix E.

Figure 8. Number of States Reporting Participation by Various Approaches for Regular Assessments in NCLB Accountability Systems in 2006-2007

Figure 8 

Figure 9. Number of All Regular Assessments (N=78) Reported by Various Approaches in NCLB Accountability Systems in 2006-2007 (Regular States)

Figure 9 

The most common way that states reported participation was number of students assessed (n=34). This was followed by reporting the percent of students assessed (n=16) and information about exempted or excluded students (n=11). Only a small number of states reported the percent of students not assessed (n=5). These data show that the same general pattern holds with most assessments having participation reported by number assessed (n=49), percent of students assessed (n=23), and information about exemption and exclusion (n=14).

Participation data for the unique states are not graphed due to the small amount of data. The one state (District of Columbia) that publicly reported participation and performance data reported the number and percent of students assessed. The remaining 10 unique states reported no disaggregated participation data publicly (see Appendix E).

Figure 10 shows the participation rates reported for 8th grade math in states where this information was reported, or the data could be derived. The grade and content area (middle school math) were chosen to maintain consistency with previous reports. States that aggregated middle school grades together were not included. For the 2006-2007 academic year, participation rates ranged from 79% to 100%, compared to a range of 89% to 99% in 2005-2006. More states are graphed in the current year (N=22) compared to the previous two years, with 14 states in 2005-2006 and 20 states in 2004-2005. Fifty-nine percent (13 of 22 states) had participation rates of 95%, compared to sixty-nine percent in 2005-2006 and fifty percent in 2004-2005.

Figure 10. Percentages of Students with Disabilities Participating in Middle School Regular Math Assessments in Those States with Clear Reporting of Participation Rates*

Figure 10 

*Note: States graphed here include those with percentages derived from presented data, so some may not be counted as reporting a rate in Appendix E.

 

Alternate Assessment Disaggregated Participation Results for Students with Disabilities

We examined the ways in which states reported participation data for their alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (see Appendix F). Figure 11 shows how the 50 regular states approached reporting participation data for AA-AAS. Figure 12 shows the same data as Figure 11, but for the total number of AA-AAS (n=52). As shown in Figure 11, states most commonly reported by number of students assessed (n=29), followed by percent of students assessed (n=8), and percent of students by assessment (n=7). This is a slightly different pattern from the ways in which participation data were reported for regular assessments. The category “percent of students by assessment” appears more common for AA-AAS only because there are fewer states reporting exemption and exclusion information, number of students not assessed, and number absent for the AA-AAS compared to regular assessments. The number of states that reported the percent of students by assessment (e.g., 1% taking the AA-AAS) is the same across the AA-AAS and the regular assessment.

Figure 11. Number of Regular States Reporting Participation by Various Approaches for AA-AAS in the NCLB Accountability System in 2006-2007

Figure 11 

Figure 12. Number of All AA-AAS’ (N=52) Participation Reported by Various Approaches in the NCLB Accountability System in 2006-2007 (Regular States)

Figure 12


Communicating Performance in 2006-2007

Regular Assessment Performance and Select Results

States also report performance data in a variety of ways, such as the number or percent in each achievement level, percent proficient or not proficient, and scaled scores. The details for the figures in this section are presented by state and assessment in Appendix G. Figure 13 shows how the 50 states reported performance on regular assessments. Figure 14 reports the same information, but by the total number of regular assessments within NCLB accountability systems (N=78).

The most common way states reported performance data was by percent in each achievement level (n=34), followed by percent proficient (n=27) and other score (n=15). The “other score” category reflects the fact that many states reported scaled scores or other types of scores that did not fit into the other categories we used in the past. The same basic pattern was seen when looking at the data by the 78 total regular assessments (see Figure 14).

Figure 13. Number of States Reporting Performance by Various Approaches for Regular Assessments in the NCLB Accountability Systems in 2006-2007

Figure 13 

Figure 14. Number of All Regular Assessments’ (N=78) Performance Reported by Various Approaches in NCLB Accountability Systems in 2006-2007 (Regular States)

Figure 14 


Selected Disaggregated Results of Regular Assessment Performance

This section compares the performance of general education students and students with disabilities for those states reporting disaggregated data. It is important to keep in mind that each state determines the specific content of its assessments and establishes its own proficiency levels. Thus it is unwise to compare proficiency rates focusing on individual states, or to similarly compare gaps between general education versus special education across states. Regular assessments in this section include predominantly state CRTs, though Exit assessments were also used when states had no other assessment for 10th grade for NCLB accountability. One state, Iowa, used an NRT.

As noted in the method, the comparison group of general education students may include all students assessed or all students without disabilities assessed, due to the variety in how states report. This can influence how gap comparisons are interpreted, slightly, depending on the percentage of students with disabilities in the assessment.

Reading Performance

For 2006-07 we note that more states had data available for gap analyses than in 2005-06. Figures 15-17 show the reading performance of students by state for those reporting data in 2006-07. As in previous years, the performance of students with disabilities in reading was considerably lower in most states than the performance of general education students. However, there are smaller average gaps between the two groups for the data sets available in 2006-2007 compared to 2005-2006 at each representative grade level in both Reading and Math (Table 3a). Similarly, the data set for the current year showed slightly more states with gaps of 25 points or less in both Reading and Math (Table 3b).

Table 3a. Gaps for Regular Assessments From Two Different Data Sets: Comparison of Mean Gaps for 2005-06 to Mean Gaps in 2006-07

 

 

Mean Gap for 2005-06

 

Mean Gap for 2006-07

Gap Change for All

Gap Change Common States Across Years

Elementary Reading

34.5 (45 states)

31.4 (47 states)

3.1

3.1

(45 states)

Middle School Reading

42.5 (45 states)

40.5 (47 states)

2.1

2.1

(45 states)

High School Reading

42.5 (41 states)

39.8 (46 states)

2.7

1.7

(40 states)

Elementary Math

29.3 (45 states)

28.9 (47 states)

.4

.6

(45 states)

Middle School Math

40.9 (45 states)

39.7 (47 states)

1.2

1.3

(45 states)

High School Math

38.5 (42 states)

38.2 (44 states)

.3

.4

(41 states)

Table 3b. Gaps for Regular Assessments: Comparison of Total Number of States with Gaps of 25 or Less in 2005-06 and 2006-07

  Number (Percent) of States with Gaps of 25 Points or Less
2005-06 2006-07
ELementary Reading 8 of 45 (18%) 16 of 47 (34%)
Middle School Reading 4 of 45 (9%) 5 of 47 (11%)
High School Reading 4 of 41 (10%) 7 of 46 (15%)
Elementary Math 12 of 45 (27%) 13 of 47 (28%)
Middle School Math 3 of 45 (7%) 4 of 47 (9%)
High School Math 4 of 42 (10%) 6 of 44 (13%)

Figures 15-17 show the graphed reading performance of students for states that reported data. In most states the reading performance of students with disabilities was considerably lower than the performance of general education students. Middle school and high school average scores were lower than elementary scores, in general.

At the elementary level (see Figure 15), gaps ranged from 9 to 48 percent. The following states had gaps of 25 percentage points or less: Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This total of 16 states is twice as large as the 8 states in this category in 2005-2006. A review of the previous year’s states show that only one of these states was newly added as reporting elementary reading data in 2006-2007 (Tennessee), and that two other states had notes on technical documentation to caution against longitudinal comparisons across these years (Arizona and Louisiana).

At the middle school level (see Figure 16), gaps ranged from 12 to 56 percent. States with gaps of 25 percentage points or less were: Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Texas. These five states compare to 4 last year. However, Louisiana indicated changes for 2006-2007 that might affect year to year comparisons. Nine states had gaps of 50 points or more: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Utah. Compared to 2005-2006, two states left this list and two new ones joined it, for the same total number.

At the high school level (see Figure 17), gaps ranged from 11 to 73 percent. Seven states had gaps of 25 percentage points or less: Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Virginia. Last year, just four states were in this category. However, Louisiana had cautionary information on direct comparisons across years, and Tennessee was not reported last year so is not able to be compared. For 2006-2007, 10 states had gaps of 50 points or more: Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Last year there were 13 states in this category. We caution against comparing gaps across states, but are encouraged by what might be a trend toward smaller gaps at the elementary and high school level in reading.

Figure 15. Elementary School Reading Performance on the Regular Assessment

Figure 15 

Legend:
Heavy Solid Bar = Students with disabilities percent proficient
Dashed Line= Gap between students with disabilities and regular students. For some states our “regular students” comparison group may include students with disabilities, because states report data differently.

Figure 16. Middle School Reading Performance on the Regular Assessment

Figure 16 

Legend:
Heavy Solid Bar = Students with disabilities percent proficient
Dashed Line= Gap between students with disabilities and regular students. For some states our “regular students” comparison group may include students with disabilities, because states report data differently.

Figure 17. High School Reading Performance on the Regular Assessment

Figure 17 

Legend:
Heavy Solid Bar = Students with disabilities percent proficient
Dashed Line= Gap between students with disabilities and regular students. For some states our “regular students” comparison group may include students with disabilities, because states report data differently.

 

Mathematics Performance

Figures 18-20 show the performance of general education students and students with disabilities on states’ 2006-2007 regular math assessments. It appears, as with reading, that there are smaller gaps in math performance across grade levels.

At the elementary school level, gaps in math achievement on regular assessments were smaller than for either middle school or high school. The gaps (see Figure 18) ranged from a low of 7 to a high of 42. Thirteen states (Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia) had gaps of 25 percentage points or less, compared to twelve states in 2005-2006. In 2006-2007, states with the largest gaps of 40 and above were Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, and Mississippi, compared to six in the previous year.

At the middle school level (see Figure 19), gaps in achievement on regular math assessments ranged from a low of 10 to a high of 50. States with gaps of 25 percentage points or less were Louisiana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Texas. States with gaps of 50 or more were Utah and Wisconsin. The respective numbers in 2005-2006 were three states with gaps of 25 points or less, and five states with gaps of 50 points or more.

Gaps in math achievement on regular high school math assessments (see Figure 20) ranged from a low of 7 percentage points to a high of 56 percentage points. States with a gap of 25 percentage points or less were California, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia. These six states compare to four in 2005-2006. States with a gap of 50 points or more in 2006-2007 were Alabama, Indiana, Montana, New Jersey, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. These seven states compare to six states last year.

By these measures, there was only a slight reduction in gaps observed here across years for mathematics at the elementary and middle school levels. For reading, the observed gap differences suggested more improvement across elementary and high school levels.

Figure 18. Elementary Mathematics Performance on the Regular Assessment

Figure 18 

Legend:
Heavy Solid Bar = Students with disabilities percent proficient
Dashed Line= Gap between students with disabilities and regular students. For some states our “regular students” comparison group may include students with disabilities, because states report data differently.

Figure 19. Middle School Mathematics Performance on the Regular Assessment

Figure 19 

Legend:
Heavy Solid Bar = Students with disabilities percent proficient
Dashed Line= Gap between students with disabilities and regular students. For some states our “regular students” comparison group may include students with disabilities, because states report data differently.

Figure 20. High School Mathematics Performance on the Regular Assessment

Figure 20 

Legend:
Heavy Solid Bar = Students with disabilities percent proficient
Dashed Line= Gap between students with disabilities and regular students. For some states our “regular students” comparison group may include students with disabilities, because states report data differently.


Alternate Assessment Performance Results

Figure 21 displays the approaches that the 50 states used to report performance data for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Examining the approaches in terms of the number of assessments showed the same pattern due to the fact that the number of AA-AAS is nearly identical to the number of states. The only difference was that there were 52 assessments counted as AA-AAS in the 50 states. One was a separate high school version of a state’s AA-AAS, and the other was a separate assessment complementing a state’s regular NRT component. Figure 21 shows the same basic pattern as the reporting for regular assessments, with the most common performance reporting categories being percent in each achievement level (n=28), followed by percent proficient (n=15), and Percent not proficient (n=6). In comparison, percent not proficient was the fourth most common category for regular assessment reporting because more states reported “other scores” on regular assessments than they did for AA-AAS. Only two states reported “other scores” for AA-AAS. For more detailed information by state and assessment see Appendix H.

Figure 21. Number of States Reporting AA-AAS Performance by Various Approaches in the NCLB Accountability System in 2006-2007*

Figure 21 

* Graph for Performance Data by all AA-AAS was the same as by state, so is not presented here.


Other Information Collected for 2006-2007

Accommodations

Sixteen states reported participation or performance data for students taking state assessments with or without accommodations. This number was up from 10 in 2005-06, and equaled the number of states reporting this information in 2004-05.

In this year, of sixteen states with data on accommodated participation, 14 states reported accommodated students’ participation, performance, or both, disaggregating by grade. Four states reported participation and performance by specific type of accommodation used by students (Colorado, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas). Three states reported participation and performance for accommodations based on levels of approval for their use: nonapproved/modification (Colorado), standard and conditional accommodation (Georgia), and standard and non-standard accommodation (Michigan). Although these three reported the performance for those with nonstandard accommodations, the numbers were too low to report for privacy considerations. One state reported accommodation use by whether a student was “significantly cognitively disabled (SCD)” (Mississippi), and another state reported accommodation use disaggregated by its assessment based on modified achievement standards (Oklahoma). Another state reported linguistically accommodated testing (LAT) administration for students with disabilities, as well as a “bundled” set of accommodations for students with dyslexia (Texas).

Of all 16 states reporting data on accommodated administrations of a state assessment, 6 states reported participation only (either the number or percent participating) with accommodations (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Tennessee). For actual participation and performance data for accommodated administration of assessments, see the summary in Table 4 and Appendix I.

Table 4. 2006-2007 Summary of States that Reported State-Level Information about Accommodations

Statea

Assessments

Terminology Used

By
Content/Grade?

Participation

Performance

Population Comments

Colorado

CSAP, CSAPA

With Accommodations and by specific accommodation

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

All students with a documented need

Connecticut

CMT

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

No

Students with disabilities

Florida

FCAT CRT

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

Students with disabilities

Georgia

Does not specify

Without, Standard, and Conditional accommodations (and specific)

Yes/Aggregated grades 1-8 and 11

Yes

Yes

Students with disabilities

Indiana

ISTEP+

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

Students with disabilities, non-ESL, and ESL/LEP.

Iowa

ITBS/ITED

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

No

Students with disabilities

Kentucky

KCCT

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

Students with disabilities

Massachusetts

MCAS

Accommodated and regular test administration

Yes/Yes

Yes

No

Students with disabilities

Michigan

MEAP and Access-Functional Independence Test

Standard all, Nonstandard all, Standard ELL only and Nonstandard ELL only

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

Access test has students with disabilities, MEAP unclear group.

Mississippi

MCT

With and without accommodations

Yes, Grades 3-8 together and high school level

Yes

No

Students with disabilities

Nebraska

Writing

Students receiving accommodation

Yes/Yes

Yes

No

Students with disabilities

North Carolina

EOG and EOC

By specific accommodation

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

N/A

Oklahoma

OCCT and OMAAP

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

Students with disabilities

Note: The OAAP Portfolio facilitates all appropriate accommodations

South Dakota

Dakota STEP

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

General population (not students with disabilities only)

Tennessee

TCAP-AT

With and without accommodations

Yes/Yes

Yes

No

Students in Special Education

Texas

TAKS

Students tested with bundled dyslexia accommodations and LAT (Linguistically Accommodated Testing).

Yes/Yes

Yes

Yes

Bundled and LAT: Total using, African American, Hispanic and white students, economically disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and special education students.

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

 

“Click” Analysis of Web-based Reporting

Publicly reported data are not functionally public unless provided in an easily accessible manner. To examine ease of access, we analyzed the number of clicks it takes to locate disaggregated data on students with disabilities on states’ Department of Education Web sites (see Figures 22 and 23). This analysis is similar to previous analyses we have conducted, and presents click summary figures for all regular states with data on regular assessments and AA-AAS.

Figure 22 presents the number of clicks between Web pages required to arrive at the disaggregated data for states’ regular assessments. Figure 23 presents the same information for states’ AA-AAS. For states with a Web page that generates reports, we did not count the additional clicks needed to choose specific demographic or assessment characteristics. For those sites, we only counted the number of clicks needed to arrive at the generator site and a final “submit” click. Web page search engines were not used and “false starts” were not counted.

For 2006-2007, most state Web sites in the analysis required three or four clicks to access data, with 34 states for regular assessments and 44 states for AA-AAS data. Only two states required seven or more clicks for regular and AA-AAS assessments. This is somewhat comparable to the report on 2005-2006 assessments, which found 22 states with 3-4 clicks and 3 states with 7 clicks or more for regular assessments. However, because Web sites change frequently, and because analysis of 2006-2007 data included nine more states reporting regular assessment data than the previous report, one should not assume a clear year-to-year comparison is possible.

Figure 22. Number of States in Each “Click” Category for States Reporting Regular Assessments (Total N=49)

Figure 22 

Figure 23. Number of States in Each Click Category for states Reporting Alternate Assessments (Total N=44)

Figure 23 


Summary and Discussion

For 2006-2007, 49 out of 50 regular states were counted as having reported disaggregated data for students with disabilities in a manner comparable to that of general education or all students. Further, there were more states reporting complete disaggregated data for students with disabilities for regular assessments and alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) during 2006-2007, both within and outside NCLB accountability systems. Those states reporting both participation and performance for all regular assessments increased from 39 states in 2005-2006 to 46 states in 2006-2007. States reported disaggregated participation and performance data online for 92% of all regular assessments within NCLB systems. Two states reported only performance. One reported participation and performance for some assessments, and one state was not counted as reporting because the format was not in a manner similar to that for other students. Unfortunately, the number of unique states, including special territories, reporting disaggregated data publicly for regular assessments decreased slightly from two to one state. One additional unique state e-mailed disaggregated data for its regular assessment, but this was not counted because the data appeared to be in APR tables, which were not counted for this report.

The number of states reporting participation and performance also increased for regular states reporting data for AA-AAS. There were 12 more regular states reporting these data in 2006-2007 compared to 2005-2006, from 24 states to 36. The number of states that did not report any data for AA-AAS declined across the two years from 13 states to 7. Other states reported partial information for either participation or performance, with five states that reported only performance, and two states that reported only participation. Unlike for 2005-2006, there were no unique states that publicly reported data for AA-AAS online in 2006-2007. One unique state did e-mail data for its AA-AAS, but similarly to its regular assessment data, the data appeared to be APR data, so thus were not counted.

The most common approaches used by states to communicate participation and performance on regular assessments and AA-AAS remained the same as for 2005-2006, with some changes within the less common categories. Across assessments, the most common way to report participation was by number assessed (34 states for regular and 29 states for AA-AAS). The most common way of reporting performance was by the percent of students in each achievement level (34 states for regular and 28 states for AA-AAS).

In summarizing performance, as in previous years, data for reading and mathematics showed that performance for students with disabilities was lower in most states compared to general education students. However, we observed slightly smaller average gaps between the two groups for the data sets available in 2006-2007 compared to 2005-2006 at each representative grade level. Similarly, the data set for the current year showed slightly more states with gaps of 25 points or less in both reading and mathematics. Although we caution against comparing gaps across states, we are encouraged by what might be a trend toward smaller average gaps at the elementary and high school levels in reading. By similar measures, there were only slight reductions in average gaps observed for mathematics, more noticeably in elementary and middle school levels.

The number of states reporting disaggregated data for students who used accommodations on state assessments increased to16 states in 2006-2007, over 10 states in 2005-2006. This information on accommodations spanned across different state assessments including AA-AAS (n=1), norm and criterion referenced regular assessments (n=16), and an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards. One state did not identify the assessment(s) included in the data.

 

Recommendations for Reporting

Based on findings in previous reports and in this current analysis, recommendations are made for reporting data:

Report participation and performance results for each assessment, content area and grade level. States’ annual performance reports (APRs) and state performance plans (SPPs) are now often posted on state education Web sites. However, these reports are not always presented in a way that is accessible to public audiences as are regular public reports. A few states do incorporate these data into regular reports that are designed to consider a public audience, but most do not. States doing so should consider whether the data for students with disabilities are being presented in a manner comparable to regular reporting for students without disabilities, and are geared to a public audience. States should report data for each content area by grade level assessed. Although NCLB does not require states to report data by grade, many states have done so in previous public reports and the data are useful for analysis. We noted in the appendices where reporting was unclear (e.g., reported by grade ranges rather than individual grades), and these data could not be used in most of our analyses. For example, although these data were used for generally describing the number of states that reported participation and performance, they could not be used for the gap analyses.

As mentioned in previous reports, the confidentiality issue is often a factor for reporting participation for alternate assessments. Yet, our practice remained the same; we counted states as reporting this information if they used a symbol such as a dash or asterisk due to the minimum N privacy policy. We recommend that states report the total participation and performance of students with disabilities by grade and content area, because when a state only reports data by further categorical breakdowns (e.g., alternate assessment participation by disability category), often the number is too small to report the data.

Clearly label preliminary and final data with dates posted. It continues to be important for the public to be able to clearly identify what the most recent and reliable data are for a given year. Many states do note when data posted are preliminary, whether the reports are PDF files or other formats. But, this needs to be done consistently across states. Also, sometimes a state will post data in two different final reports that were created for different purposes. In these cases the purpose should be clearly indicated as well. The documents we collect to analyze for this and similar reports are regular state reports usually located on one Web page or accessible through one page for report generators. Thus, documents not located together or in similar format to the regular assessment report for general education students are not considered. For this reason, and for the benefit of general users, states should present disaggregated data for students with disabilities in a similar manner, and that are located near or integrated with data for general students.

Report participation with accommodations. The number of states that reported participation of students with accommodations increased from the previous report, from 10 states to 16. We encourage this practice because it helps to understand how students are participating overall, and how accommodations may figure into their participation in either regular or alternate assessments. It is also important to report these data in order to see the extent that there may be students excluded from the performance data being reported. Thus, states that report these data by grade and content area should continue to do so because it provides useful information for interpreting participation and performance more clearly.

Percentage reporting. States should consider reporting participation rates, disaggregated by grade. This information is useful for interpreting data such as achievement gaps between students with and without disabilities. In addition to reporting these general participation rates, reporting the percentage of students with disabilities in each type of state assessment by grade level would also be beneficial for interpreting performance data. For example, one state may have more students with disabilities in its regular assessment with or without accommodations compared to another state that may have a higher percentage of its students with disabilities in alternate assessments based on grade level or modified achievement standards. Being able to clearly compare percentages by assessment type and by participation within each grade level would be useful for interpretation and analysis.

Make data accessible. From our analysis of the number of mouse clicks it took to reach state assessment reports from a state education home page, almost half of the states’ data could be reasonably found in four clicks or less. We encourage more states to make the path to assessment data clear for users. Other factors related to accessibility, already mentioned, are clear labeling of the status and purpose of data and ensuring public accessibility in how data are presented.

We conclude by recognizing the increase in numbers of regular states reporting disaggregated assessment data for students with disabilities, particularly online. This reflects greater transparency for regular states than in the previous year. We encourage more states to report by grade level. Not only will this allow us to include more data in a wider range of analyses, but it will also make the data even more transparent for the public. Although the public reporting of disaggregated data for students with disabilities in unique states decreased this year, we hope to see increased public reporting practices among these states in subsequent years.


References

Klein, J.A., Wiley, H.I., & Thurlow, M.L. (2006). Uneven transparency: NCLB tests take precedence in public assessment reporting for students with disabilities (Technical Report 43). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., & Bremer, C., Albus, D. (2008). Good news bad news in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2005-2006 assessment results (Technical Report 52). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., & Wiley, H.I. (2004). Almost there is public reporting of assessment results for students with disabilities (Technical Report 39). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Wiley, H.I., & Bielinski, J. (2003). Going public: What 2000-2001 reports tell us about the performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

VanGetson, G.R., & Thurlow, M.L. (2007). Nearing the target in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2004-2005 assessment results (Technical Report 46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Wiley, H.I., Thurlow, M.L., & Klein, J.A. (2005). Steady progress: State public reporting practices for students with disabilities after the first year of NCLB (2002-2003) (Technical Report 40). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.


Appendix A

Sample Letter Sent to Assessment Directors

February 22, 2008

The National Center on Educational Outcomes is examining states’ public reports on 2006-2007 school year assessment results. Our goal is to (a) identify all components of each state’s testing system (with the exception of tests specific to English language learners), (b) determine whether each state reports disaggregated test results for students with disabilities, (c) describe the way participation and performance information is presented, and (d) describe how states report results for students who took the test with accommodations or modifications.

We have reviewed your Web site for test information, including both participation and performance data on your statewide assessments. Enclosed are tables highlighting our findings from that review. Please verify all included information. Specifically, please return the tables that we have attached, noting your changes to them. Also, if there is additional publicly reported information available for your state, please provide us with the public document and/or website that contains the accurate information. Address your responses to Deb Albus via fax at (612) 624-0879 or via mail to the above address.

If you have any questions about our request, please call Deb Albus at (612) 626-0323 or email: albus001@umn.edu. If we do not hear from you by March 14, 2008, we will assume there is no additional publicly available information.

Thank you for taking the time to provide this information.

Sincerely,

Martha Thurlow
Director

Deb Albus
Research Fellow

 

(Tables 1- 4)

Table 1: Tests Administered and Results Found on Your State’s Regular Report(s)

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

Test Grades Tested Subject Areas Is Disaggregated Info for Students with Disabilities Reported? (Yes/No)
Is this test part of the state accountability system? (Yes/No)
  Participation Performance  
Direct Assessment of Writing (DAW) [CRT] 5, 7, 10 Writing No No No
Was test dropped?
Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) [EXIT] 11, 12 Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies Yes Yes Yes
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th ed. (SAT-10) [NRT] 3 - 8 Reading, Language, Math, Science (5,7), Social Studies (6) Yes Yes No
Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) [CRT] 3 - 8 Reading, Math Yes Yes Yes
Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA)
AAS*
1 - 12 Reading, Math Yes Yes Yes

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

 

Table 2: Participation Information for Students with Disabilities

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

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

Test

Data reported by grade and individual test

Percent of Students by Assessment

(e.g.,4% in alternate on AAS)

Number of Students Tested

Number of Students Not Tested

Percent of Students (participation rate e.g., 98% gr. 4)

Percent of Students Not Tested

Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded

Number and/or Percent Absent

AHSGE

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

SAT-10

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

ARMT

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

AAA

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

 

Table 3: Performance Information for Students with Disabilities

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

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

Test

Data reported by grade and individual test

Percent in Each Achievement Level

Percent in Each PR* Group

Percent Proficient

Percent Not Proficient

Number in Each Achievement Level

Number Proficient

Number Not Proficient

Average Percentile Rank

AHSGE

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SAT-10

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

ARMT

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AAA

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

*=Percentile Rank

 

Table 4: Accommodations

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

Tests Reporting Data on Accommodations

Accommodation Categories

Is Disaggregated Info for Students Using Accommodations Reported? (Yes/No)

For Whom?

 

Participation

Performance

 

None

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix B

Sample Letter Sent to Special Education Directors

 

April 28, 2008

The National Center on Educational Outcomes is examining states’ public reports on 2006-2007 school year assessment results. Our goal is to (a) identify all components of each state’s testing system (with the exception of tests specific to English language learners), (b) determine whether each state reports disaggregated test results for students with disabilities, (c) describe the way participation and performance information is presented, and (d) describe how states report results for students who took the test with accommodations or modifications.

We have reviewed your Web site for test information, including both participation and performance data on your statewide assessments in regular state reports. Enclosed are tables highlighting our findings from that review. Please verify all included information. Specifically, please return the tables that we have attached, noting your changes to them. Also, if there is additional publicly reported information in regular reports available for your state, please provide us with the public document and/or website that contains the accurate information. Address your responses to Deb Albus via fax at (612) 624-0879 or via mail to the above address.

If you have any questions about our request, please call Deb Albus at (612) 626-0323 or email: albus001@umn.edu. If we do not hear from you by May 26, 2008, we will assume there is no additional publicly available information.

Thank you for taking the time to provide this information.

Sincerely,

Martha Thurlow
Director

Deb Albus
Research Fellow

 

ALABAMA, 2006-2007

(Tables 1- 4)

Table 1: Tests Administered and Results Found on Your State’s Regular Report(s)

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

Test

Grades Tested

Subject Areas

Is Disaggregated Info for Students with Disabilities Reported? (Yes/No)

Is this test part of the state accountability system? (Yes/No)

 

Participation

Performance

 

Direct Assessment of Writing (DAW) [CRT]

5, 7, 10

Writing

No

No

No

Was test dropped?

Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) [EXIT]

11, 12

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stanford Achievement Test, 10th ed. (SAT-10) [NRT]

3 - 8

Reading, Language, Math, Science (5,7), Social Studies (6)

Yes

Yes

No

Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) [CRT]

3 - 8

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA)

AAS*

1 - 12

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

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

 

Table 2: Participation Information for Students with Disabilities

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

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

Test 

Data reported by grade and individual test

Percent of Students by Assessment

(e.g.,4% in alternate on AAS)

Number of Students Tested

Number of Students Not Tested

Percent of Students (participation rate e.g., 98% gr. 4)

Percent of Students Not Tested

Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded

Number and/or Percent Absent

AHSGE

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

SAT-10

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

ARMT

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

AAA

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

 

Table 3: Performance Information for Students with Disabilities

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

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

Test

Data reported by grade and individual test

Percent in Each Achievement Level

Percent in Each PR* Group

Percent Proficient

Percent Not Proficient

Number in Each Achievement Level

Number Proficient

Number Not Proficient

Average Percentile Rank

AHSGE

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SAT-10

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

ARMT

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AAA

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

*=Percentile Rank

 

Table 4: Accommodations

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

Tests Reporting Data on Accommodations

Accommodation Categories

Is Disaggregated Info for Students Using Accommodations Reported? (Yes/No)

For Whom?

 

Participation

Performance

 

None

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix C

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-2007

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

State

Assessment Component

 

Grades

 

Subject

 

 

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Test Used for NCLB Accountability Purposes

Part.

Perf.

Alabama

Direct Assessment of Writing (DAW) [CRT]

5,7,10

Writing

No

No

No

Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) [EXIT]

11,12

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stanford Achievement Test, 10th ed. (SAT-10) [NRT]

3-8

Reading, Language, Math (3-8), Science (5,7), Social Studies (6)

Yes

Yes

No

Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alaska

Standards Based Assessment (SBA) [CRT]

3-10

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) [EXIT]

10-12

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

TerraNova/CAT-6 [NRT]

5, 7

Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, Spelling

No

Yes

No

Arizona

TerraNova [NRT]

2-9

Reading/Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) [NRT/CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

AIMS High School (AIMS HS) [EXIT]

10 -12

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Arkansas

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) [NRT]

K-9

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

No

Arkansas Benchmark Exams [CRT]

3-8

Literacy(Reading), Math

No

Yes

Yes

End of Course (EOC) [CRT]

HS

EOC-Algebra I, EOC-Geometry, Literacy

No

Yes

Yes

California

California Standards Tests (CSTs) [CRT]

2-11

English Language Arts (2-11), Math (2-8), Science (5,8,10), Math End-of-Course (8-11), History-Social Science (8,10,11), Science End-of-Course (9-11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

California Achievement Test, 6th ed. (CAT-6) [NRT]

3,7

Reading, Language, Math, Spelling

Yes

Yes

No

Colorado

Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) [CRT]

3-10

Reading, Math, Writing (3-10); Spanish Reading, Spanish Writing (3,4); Science (5,8,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Connecticut

Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) [CRT]

10

Reading, Math, Writing, Science

Yes

Yes

Yes

Delaware

Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP) [NRT/CRT]

2-11

Reading, Math (2-10), Writing (3-10), Science, Social Studies (4,6,8,11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Florida

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT), includes SAT-9 [NRT/CRT]

(no NRT reported for participation or performance)

3-11

Reading (3-10), Math (3-10), Writing (4,8,10), Science (5,8,11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

FCAT NRT (SAT 10)

3-10

Reading (3-10)

Math (3-10)

No

No

No

Georgia

End of Course Tests (EOCT) [CRT]

9-12

English Literature and Composition (9), American Literature and Composition, Algebra, Geometry, Biology, Physical Science, US History, Economics/Business/Free Enterprise

Yes

Yes

No

Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) [EXIT]

11

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) [CRT]

1-8

Reading, English/Language Arts, Math, Science (3-8), Social Studies (3-8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Eighth Grade Writing Assessment [CRT]

8

Writing

Yes

Yes

No

Hawaii

Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) [CRT]

3-8,10

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Idaho

Idaho Direct Assessments (DMA/DWA) [CRT]

4-9

Math (4,6,8), Writing (5,7,9)

Yes

Yes

No

Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT) [CRT]

3-8, 10

Reading, Language Usage, Math, Science (5,7,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) [CRT]

K-3

Reading

Yes

Yes

No

Illinois

Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) [CRT] *7th grade science not reported

3,4,5,7,8

Reading (3,5,8), Math (3,5,8), Science (4,7)

No

Yes

Yes

Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE) [CRT]

11

Reading, Math, Science

No

Yes

Yes

Indiana

Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress (ISTEP+) [NRT/CRT]

3-10

English Language Arts, Math, (3-10), Science (5,7)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Graduation Qualifying Exam (GQE) [EXIT]

10

English Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Core 40 End-of-Course Assessments (ECAs) [EXIT]

Varies

English 11, Algebra 1

No

No

No

Iowa

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]

3-8, 11

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Kansas

Kansas Assessment System (KAS) [CRT]

*Combines all tests

3-8, 10, 11

Reading (3-8,11), Math (3-8,10)

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Kentucky

Explore (8th)[NRT] and

Plan (10th)[NRT]

6, 9

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

No

Kentucky Core Content Test (KCCT)[CRT]

3 – 8, 10-12

Reading (3-8,10), Math (3-8,11), Writing Portfolio and On-Demand (5,8,12), Science (4,7,11), Social Studies (5,8,11), Arts & Humanities (5,8,11), Practical Living & Vocational Studies (4,7, 10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Louisiana

Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21) [CRT]

4,8

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

iLEAP [NRT/CRT]

3, 5-7, 9

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Graduation Exit Exam (GEE 21) [EXIT]

10, 11

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maine

Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math (3-8); Science (4, 8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maine High School Assessment (MHSA), which consists of two components: the SAT (NRT) and an augmented mathematics component (CRT)

HS

Reading, Math, and Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maryland

Maryland School Assessment (MSA) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

High School Assessment (HSA) [CRT]

9-12

English 2, Geometry, Biology, Government, Algebra

(had for English 2 and Algebra but not other three subjects)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) [CRT]

3-8,10

Reading (3, 5-6, 8), English Language Arts (4,7,10), Math (3-8,10), Science (5,8, 9/10)

[had for sci &tech and engineering tests)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Michigan

Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) [CRT]

3-9

Reading, Math, English Language Arts, Writing (3-8); Science (5,8), Social Studies (6,9)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Minnesota

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) [CRT]

3-8, 11

Reading (3-8,10), Math (3-8, 11), Writing (5)

Yes

Yes

Yes

BST (phasing out) [Exit]

10

Writing

Yes

Yes

No

GRAD [Exit]

11

Reading, Writing, and Math

Yes

Yes

No

Mississippi

Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) [CRT] *Not by grade

2-8

Reading, Language, Math

Yes*

Yes

Yes

Writing Assessment (WA) [CRT]

4,7

Writing

No

Yes

No

Subject Area Testing Program (SATP) [CRT]

H S

Algebra I, US History, Biology, English II

No

Yes

Yes

Missouri

Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) (TerraNova survey) [NRT/CRT]

3-8,10, 11

Communication Arts (3-8, 11), Math (3-8,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Montana

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]

4,8,11

Reading, Math, Language Arts, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

No

Montana CRT [CRT]

3-8,10

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nebraska

Nebraska Statewide Writing Assessment (NSWA) [CRT]

4,8,11

Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

School-based Teacher-led Assessment and Reporting System (STARS) [CRT]

4,8,11

Math, Reading

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nevada

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]

4,7,10

Reading, Math, Science, Language

Yes

Yes

No

Nevada Criterion Referenced Test (NCRT) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math (3-8); Science (5,8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) [EXIT]

10-11

Reading, Math (10-11); Writing (11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nevada Analytic Writing Examination (NAWE) [CRT]

5, 8

Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Hampshire

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) [CRT]

3-8, 11

Reading, Math (3-8, 11); Writing (5,8)

(Grade 11 not disaggregated for students with disabilities)

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Jersey

New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge (NJ-ASK) [CRT]

3-7

Language Arts Literacy, Math (3-7); Science (4)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) [CRT]

8

Language Arts Literacy, Math, Science

Yes

Yes

Yes

High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) [EXIT]

11

Language Arts Literacy, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Mexico

New Mexico Standards Based Assessment (NMSBA) [CRT]

3-9, 11

Reading/Writing, Math, Science

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Mexico High School Competency Exam (NMHSCE) [EXIT]

10-12+

Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, High School competency, Social Studies, Writing

No

No

No

New York

Regents Comprehensive Exams (RCE) [EXIT]

9-12

English, Foreign Languages, Math, Global History & Geography, US History & Government, Living Environment, Earth Science, Chemistry, Physics

Yes

Yes

Yes

Regents Competency Test (RCT) [EXIT]

99-12

Reading, Math, Science, Writing, Global Studies, US Hist & Gov’t

Yes/font>

Yes

Yes

New York State Assessment Program (NYSAP) [CRT]

3-8

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

North Carolina

End-of-Grade (EOG) [CRT] (includes gr. 3 pretest)

3-8, 10

5 and 8

Reading, Math

Science (5 and 8)

Yes

No (Science pilot)

Yes

No (Science pilot)

Yes

End-of-Course (EOC) [CRT]

HS

Biology, Chemistry, Physics, English I, Physical Science, Algebra I & II, Geometry, Civics & Economics

Yes

Yes

Yes

Computer Skills Test (reporting includes alternate version) [EXIT]

8-12

Computer Skills (test version matches curriculum for year) [Exit]

Yes

Yes

No

North Dakota

North Dakota State Assessment (NDSA) [NRT/CRT]

3-8, 11

Reading/Language, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ohio

Ohio Achievement Tests (OAT) [CRT] *combined with alternate

3-8

Reading, Math (3-8); Writing (4)

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Ohio Graduation Tests (OGT) [EXIT] *combined with alternate

10, 11

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math (3-8), Science (5,8); Social Studies (5), History/Government (8), Geography (7)

Yes

Yes

Yes

End-of-Instruction Tests (EOI) [CRT]

HS

English II, U.S. History, Algebra I, Biology I

Yes

Yes

Yes

Oregon

Oregon Statewide Assessment (OSA) [CRT]

3-8,10

Reading/Literature, Math (3-8,10), Writing (4,7,10), Science (5,8,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) [CRT]

3-8,11

Reading, Math (3-8, 11); Writing (5, 8, 11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Rhode Island

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)[CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math (3-8); Writing (5,8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

NSRE [CRT]

HS

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) *Grade 2 used for grade 3 NECAP for some schools in reporting. [CRT]

K-2

Reading

No

No

No*

South Carolina

Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) [CRT]

3-8

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

High School Assessment Program (HSAP) [EXIT]

10

English/Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

South Dakota

Dakota STEP Test (STEP) [NRT/CRT]

3-8, 11

5, 8-11

Reading, Math

Science

Yes

Yes

Yes

Stanford Writing Assessment [CRT]

5,7,10

Writing

No

No

No

Tennessee

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test (TCAP-AT) [CRT]

3-8

Reading/Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

TCAP Gateways (TCAP-SA) [CRT]

99-12

Algebra I, Biology, English I & II, Math Foundations, Physical Science, US HIstory

Yes/p>

Yes

(grade 10)

Yes

Texas

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) [CRT]

3-11

Reading (3-9), Math, English Language Arts (10,11), Writing (4,7), Science (5,10,11), Social Studies (8,10,11); Spanish version administered in grades 3-6.

Yes

Yes

Yes

End of Course Assessment [EXIT]

HS

Algebra I

Yes

Yes

No

Utah

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/ Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]

3,5,8,11

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

Core Criterion-Referenced Tests (CCRT) [CRT]

1-11

Language Arts, Math (1-11), Science (1-11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Direct Writing Assessment (DWA) [NRT]

6,9

Writing

Yes

Yes

No

Reading on Grade Level (ROGL)[Undetermined]

1-11

Reading

No

No

No

Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (UBSCT) [EXIT]

HS

Reading, Writing, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Vermont

New Standards Reference Exam (NSRE) [CRT]

10

English/ Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Vermont Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) [CRT]

2

Reading

Yes

Yes

No

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Virginia

Standards of Learning (SOL) [CRT]

*reports combined grades

3-8,

High School

English Language Arts, Math (3-8, HS); History/Social Science, Science (3, 5, 8, HS) Content Specific History (HS)

Yes*

Yes

Yes

Washington

Washington Assessment of

Student Learning (WASL) [CRT]

3-8, 10

Reading, Math (3-8, 10);

Writing (4,7,10); Science (5,8,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

West Virginia

West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST) [CRT]

3-8, 10

Reading/Language, Math, Science (3-8,10); Social Studies (3-8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Knowledge and

Concepts Exam (WKCE) [CRT]

3-8,10

Reading, Math (3-8, 10); Language Arts, Science, Social Studies (4,8,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Wyoming

Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students (PAWS) [CRT] *Excel document posted on Web site was not determined to be data presented in a similar manner as data for all students.

3-8,11

Reading, Writing, Math

No*

No*

Yes

 

Unique States

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Test Used for State Accountability Purposes

Part

Perf

American Samoa

Stanford Achievement Test – 10th Edition (SAT-10) [NRT]

3-8,10

Complete battery

No

No

Yes

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Students take the assessment of the state in which they live

 

 

No

No

Unknown

Common-wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Stanford Achievement Test- 10th

Edition (SAT-10) [NRT]

3, 5

Reading, Language, Math, Social

Science, Science

No

No

Yes

Standards Based Assessment (SBA) [CRT]

3,4,5

Math, Social Science (Gr.3), Reading, Science (Gr. 4), Writing (Gr. 5)

No

No

Yes

Department of Defense Education Activity

TerraNova [NRT]

3-11

Reading, Language Arts,

Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

Unknown

District of Columbia

Stanford Achievement Test- 9th Edition (SAT-9) [NRT] *By grade range

1-12

Reading, Math

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Federated States of Micronesia

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Guam

Stanford Achievement Test- 10th Edition (SAT-10) [NRT]

1-12

Reading, Math, Language

No

No

Yes

Palau

Palau Achievement Test (PAT)[NRT]

*State sent filled in tables with actual data but did not provide data publicly.

4,6,8,10, 12

Reading, Math

No*

No*

Yes

Puerto Rico

Pruebas Puertorriquenas de Aprovechamiento Academico (PPAA)

3-8, 11

Spanish, math, and English as a second language

No

No

Yes

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Virgin Islands

Virgin Island Territorial Assessments of Learning (VITAL)

5, 7, 11

Reading, Math

No

No

Unknown

 


Appendix D

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for Students with Disabilities on Alternate State Tests in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-2007

AAS is alternate achievement standards and GLAS is grade level achievement standards
Note: Asterisks (*) indicate there is a state note at left.

State

Assessment Component

Standards-Based

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Test Used for State Accountability Purposes

Part.

Perf.

Alabama

Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA)

AAS

1-12

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alaska

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-10

English/Language Arts, Math, Skills for a Healthy Life

Yes

Yes

Yes

Arizona

AIMS-Alternate (AIMS-A)

AAS

3-8

Reading, Math, Writing, Listening, Speaking

Yes

Yes

Yes

AIMS-A HS

AAS

10 11,12

Reading, Math, Writing, Listening (Level 1), Speaking (Level 1)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Arkansas

Alternate Portfolio Assessment System (APAS)

AAS

3-8,11

Literacy (3-8,11), Math (3-8), EOC-Algebra 1 HS), EOC-Geometry (HS)

No

No

Yes

California

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)

AAS

2-11

English Language Arts (2-11), Math (2-11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Colorado

Colorado Student Assessment Program Alternate (CSAPA)

AAS

3-10

Reading, Math (3-10), Writing, Science (5,8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Connecticut

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8,10

Reading, Math, Writing (communication)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Delaware

Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment (DAPA)

AAS

2-10

Reading, Math, Writing (2-10), Science (4,6), Social Studies (4,6,8,11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Florida

Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR)

AAS

3-10

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Georgia

Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA)

AAS

K-11

English Language Arts and mathematics (K-2), English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies (Gr. 3-8 and 11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Hawaii

Alternate Assessment
*Not reported by grade.

AAS

3-8,10

Reading, Math

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Idaho

Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA)
*Not reported by grade

AAS

K-3

Reading

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Illinois

Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA)

AAS

3,4,5,7,8, 11

Reading (3,5,8,11), Math (3,5,8,11), Science (4,7,11)

No

Yes

Yes

Indiana

Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR)

AAS

3-10

English Language Arts, Math

No

No

Yes

Iowa

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8,11

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Kansas

Alternate Assessment: KAMM [MAS] *Reported combined with other tests

MAS

3-8,10,11

Reading (3-8,11) Math (3-8,10) Science (4, 7, HS), History (5, 8, HS)

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Portfolio Assessment [AAS] *Reported combined with other tests

AAS

3-8,10,11

Reading (3-8,11) Math (3-8,10) Science (4, 7, HS), History (5, 8, HS)

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Kentucky

Alternate Portfolio Assessment
*Alternate includes NCLB required components, but includes Attainment Tasks and Transition Attainment Records at Grades 3-8, 10-12

AAS

3-8, 10-12

Reading (3-8,10), Math (3-8,11), Writing Portfolio and On-Demand (5,8,12), Science (4,7,11), Social Studies (5,8,11), Arts & Humanities (5,8,11), Practical Living & Vocational Studies (4,7, 10) *

Yes

Yes

Yes

Louisiana

Alternate Assessment Levels 1 (LAA-1)

AAS

3-12

English Language Arts, Math, Social Studies, Science

Yes

Yes

Yes

Alternate Assessment Level 2 (LAA-2)

MAS

4, 8, 10, 11

English Language Arts, Math (4, 8, 10); Social Studies, Science (11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maine

Personalized Alternate Assessment Portfolios (PAAP)

AAS

4,8,11

English Language Arts (Reading & Writing), Math (4,8,11); Science & Technology (4, 8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Maryland

Alternate Maryland School Assessment (ALT-MSA)

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Massachusetts

MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt)

AAS

3-10

Reading (3, 5, 6, 8), English Language Arts (4,7,10), Math (3-8,10), Science (5,8,9/10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Michigan

Alternate Assessment (MI-Access)

AAS

3-8

5 Performance Expectations/ Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Minnesota

Alternate Assessment (AAS)

AAS

3-8, 10, 11

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Mississippi

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8

Math, Reading/ Language Arts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Missouri

MAP-Alternate

AAS

4,8,11

Communication Arts (11), Math (4,8),

No

No

Yes

Montana

Alternate Assessment NRT

AAS

4,8,11

Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

No

Alternate Assessment CRT

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math

No

Yes

Yes

Nebraska

Alternate Assessment

AAS

4,8,12

Math, Reading/Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nevada

Nevada Alternate Scales of Academic Achievement (NASAA)

AAS

3-8

Language, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Hampshire

Alternate Assessment (NH-Alt)

AAS

10

Reading, Writing, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Jersey

Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA)

AAS

3,4,8,11

Language Arts Literacy, Math (3,4,8,11,12); Science (4,8,11)

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Mexico

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-12

Reading/Writing, Math

No

No

Yes

New York

New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSSA) *Did not report grade 12

AAS

3-8, 12

English Language Arts, Math (3-8,11), Science (4, 8), Social Studies (12)

Yes

Yes

Yes

North Carolina

North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Grade *but not writing.

GLAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math, Writing (4, 7, 10 only)

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Course *not by grade.

Computer alternate reported with regular computer test.

GLAS

9-12

Biology, Chemistry, Physics, English I, Physical Science, Algebra I & II, Geometry, US History, Civics & Economics

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

NC EXTEND1

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math, Writing (4, 7, 10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

NC EXTEND 2

MAS

3 – 8 4,7

Reading, Math, Writing (4,7)

Yes

Yes

Yes

North Dakota

North Dakota Alternate Assessment (NDALT)

AAS

3-8,11

Reading/Language, Math

Yes

No

Yes

Ohio

Alternate Assessment *Data were combined with regular test so not able to separate.

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading (3-6,8,10), Math (3,4,6-8,10), Writing (4,10), Science (10), Social Studies (10

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

Oklahoma

Alternate Assessment

OAAP

AAS

3-8

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

OMAAP

MAS

3-8

Reading, Math, Writing for Engl II only

Yes

Yes

Yes

Oregon

Extended Assessments (EA)

AAS

3- 8, 10

Reading/Literature (3,5,8,10), Writing (4,7,10), Math (3,5,8,10), Science (5,8,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Career and Life Role Assessment System (CLRAS)

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading/Literature, Math (3-8,10); Science (5,8,10); Writing (4,7,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment (PASA)

AAS

3-8, 11

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Rhode Island

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8,11

English/Language Arts, Math

Yes

No

Yes

South Carolina

SC-ALT

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math, Science, Social Studies, & Functional and Life Skills

Yes

Yes

Yes

South Dakota

Dakota STEP-A

AAS

3-8, 11

Reading, Math

No

No

Yes

Tennessee

TCAP-Alt

AAS

3-12

Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Yes

Texas

State-Developed Alternate Assessment-II (SDAA-II) *Not by grade.

AAS

3-10

Reading, Math (3-10); Writing (4,7,10); English Language Arts (10)

No*

Yes

Yes

Utah

Alternate Assessment

AAS

1-12

Language Arts, Math (1-12); Science (4-9)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Vermont

Alternate Assessment

AAS

 

Varies by type of assessment

No

No

Yes

Virginia

Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP)

AAS

3, 5, 8, 11

Collection of Evidence

No

No

Yes

Virginia Grade Level Alternative Assessment (VGLA)

GLAS

3, 5, 8, 11

English Language Arts, Math, Science, History/Social Science, Content Specific History (High School)

No

Yes

Yes

Washington

Washington Alternate Assessment System (WAAS) Portfolio

AAS

3-8,

10-12

Reading, Math (3-8, 10); Writing (4,7,10); Science (5,8,10)

Yes

Yes

Yes

WASL Basic

Other

3-8, 10-12

One or more subject areas

No

No

No

West Virginia

Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA)

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA)

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math (3-8, 10); Science, Social Studies, Language Arts (4,8,10)

No

Yes

Yes

Wyoming

Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students, Alternate (PAWS-ALT)

AAS

3-8,11

Reading, Math, Writing

No

Yes

Yes

 

Unique States Alternate Assessment Data for 2006-2007

State

Assessment Component

Standards Based*

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Test Used for State Accountability Purposes

Part.

Perf.

American Samoa

Alternate Assessment

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Alternate Assessment

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Common-wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Alternate Assessment

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Department of Defense Education Activity

Alternate Assessment

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

District of Columbia

Alternate Assessment

AAS

Unknown

Reading, Math

No

No

Yes

Federated States of Micronesia

Alternate Assessment

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Guam

Alternate Assessment

GLAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math, Language

No

No

Yes

Palau

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Puerto Rico

Pruebas Puertorriquenas de Evaluacion Alterna (PPEA)

Unknown

3-8, 11

English, Spanish, Math

No

No

Yes

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Alternate Assessment

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

Virgin Islands

Alternate Assessment

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

 


Appendix E

Disaggregated Participation Information for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-2007

Note: Shaded cells indicate unclear (e.g., aggregated grade level or subject level) reporting and asterisks, an (*) indicates that the state wanted to note that the information could be derived, and (**) indicates a state note at left under “Test.”

State

Test

Percent of Students by test (e.g.,4% in Alternate)

Number of Students Tested

Number of Students Not Tested

Percent of Students Tested

 

Percent of Students Not Tested

Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded

Number and/or Percent Absent

Alabama

DAW

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AHSGE

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

SAT-10

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

ARMT

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Alaska

SBA

N

N*

N*

Y

N

N

N

HSGQE

N

N*

N*

Y

N

N

N

TerraNova

N

N*

N*

N

N

N

N

Arizona

TerraNova

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AIMS

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

AIMS HS

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Arkansas

ITBS **state reports participation overall, not by disability status

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ABE **see note above for AR

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

EOC **see note above for AR

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

California

CSTs **Reports number with no score

Y

Y

N

N*

N

Y**

N

CAT-6 **Reports number with no score

N

Y

N

N

N

Y**

N

Colorado

CSAP **Reports number with no score

N

Y

N

N

N

Y**

N

Connecticut

CMT

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

CAPT

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Delaware

DSTP

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Florida

FCAT**combined with FAAR

N

Y

N**

N

N

N

N

FCAT NRT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Georgia

EOCT

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

GHSGT

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

CRCT

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

EGWA

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Hawaii

HSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Idaho

DMA/DWA

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

ISAT

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

IRI

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Illinois

ISAT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

PSAE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Indiana

ISTEP+

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

ECA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

GQE

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Iowa

ITBS/ITED **Also reports enrolled

N

Y**

N

Y

N

N

N

Kansas

KAS **Reports data combined with alternates.

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Kentucky

Plan (10th)
(Explore test to be added 07-08)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

KCCT **Reported by medical, first year LEP and other, but not by disability status

Y

Y

N**

Y

N

N**

N

Louisiana

GEE 21

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

LEAP 21

*8th grade only

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

iLEAP *4-7

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Maine

MEA

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

MHSA

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Maryland

MSA
**Reports totals but not by assessment or not by reason.

N

Y

 

 

Y

Y

N**

 

 

N**

N**

HSA
**Reports totals but not by assessment or not by reason.

N

Y

 

 

Y

Y

N**

 

 

N**

N**

Massachusetts

MCAS **Reports by grade but not by MCAS test.

Y

Y

 

N

Y

N

 

N

Y**

Michigan

MEAP

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Minnesota

MCA-II

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

BST

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

GRAD

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Mississippi

MCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Writing

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SATP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Missouri

MAP

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Montana

ITBS/ITED

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Montana CRT

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

Nebraska

NSWA

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

STARS

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Nevada

ITBS/ITED
**with enrolled

N

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

NCRT
**with enrolled

N

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

HSPE
**with enrolled

N

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

NAWE
**with enrolled

N

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

New Hampshire

NECAP
**with enrolled

N

Y**

Y

N

Y

Y

N

New Jersey

NJ-ASK

N

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

GEPA
**with enrolled

N

Y**

Y

N

N

Y

Y

HSPA

**with enrolled

N

Y**

Y

N

N

Y

Y

New Mexico

NMSBA

N

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

NMHSCE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

New York

RCE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

RCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NYSAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

North Carolina

EOG

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

EOC

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Computer Skills

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

North Dakota

NDSA **Percent tested is based on all in regular and alternate so unclear

N

Y

 

 

N

N**

N

 

 

Y

N

Ohio

OAT

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

OGT

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Oklahoma

OCCT
**reported by accommodated status

N

Y**

 

N

N

N

 

 

N

N

EOI
**reported by accommodated status

N

Y**

 

N

N

N

 

N

N

Oregon

OSA

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Pennsylvania

PSSA

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Rhode Island

NECAP
**with enrolled

N

Y **

Y

N

N

Y

N

NSRE

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

DRA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

South Carolina

PACT

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

HSAP

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

South Dakota

STEP
** Reports enrolled of eligible only

N

N**

N

N

Y

N

N

Stanford Writing

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Tennessee

TCAP-AT
**with and without accommodations for Math and Reading total together

Y**

N

 

 

N

N

N

 

 

N

N

TCAP-Gateways
**by accommodated status

Y**

N

 

N

N

N

 

N

N

Texas

TAKS
**Either not by grade or not by test
**Note: Data reflect the Academic Excellence Indicator System reports only. Other state reports include most results listed in these tables. 

N**

Y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

N**

N**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y

Y

EoC Algebra I

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Utah

ITBS/ITED

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CCRT

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

DWA

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

UBSCT
**with number enrolled

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

N

ROGL

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Vermont

NSRE

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

DRA

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

NECAP

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Virginia

SOL **Reports data merged with other tests, some not by grade

N

N

 

N

N

N

 

N

N

Washington

WASL

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

Y

West Virginia

WESTEST

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Wisconsin

WKCE
**combined with alternate

N

N**

 

N

N

N**

 

N

N

Wyoming

PAWS **State had separate Excel file with data, but this was deemed not to be in manner similar for all students.

N

N

 

 

 

 

N

N

N

 

 

 

 

N

N

 

Disaggregated Participation Data for Unique States on Regular Tests for 2006-2007

Unique States

 

Test

Percent of Students by test (e.g.,4% in Alternate)

Number of Students Tested

Number of Students Not Tested

 

Percent of Students Tested

 

Percent of Students Not Tested

Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded

Number and/or Percent Absent

American Samoa

SAT-10

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Students take the assessment of the state in which they live

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

SAT-10

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SBA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Department of Defense Education Activity

TerraNova

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

District of Columbia

SAT-9

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Federated States of Micronesia

Unknown

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Guam

SAT-10

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Palau

PAT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Puerto Rico

PPAA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Unknown

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Virgin Islands

VITAL

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 


Appendix F

Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Participation Information for Students with Disabilities on Regular State Tests for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-2007

Note: Shaded cells indicate unclear (e.g., aggregated grade level or subject level) reporting and asterisks, an (*) indicates that the state wanted to note that the information could be derived, and (**) indicates a state note at left under “Test.”

State

Test

 

 

Percent of Students by test (e.g.,4% in Alternate)

Number of Students Tested

Number of Students Not Tested

Percent of Students Tested

Percent of Students Not Tested

Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded

Number and/or Percent Absent

Alabama

Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA)

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Alaska

Alternate Assessment
**with enrolled

N

N*

N*

Y**

N

N

N

Arizona

AIMS-Alternate (AIMS-A)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

AIMS-A HS

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Arkansas

Alternate Portfolio Assessment System (APAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

California

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Colorado

Colorado Student Assessment Program Alternate (CSAPA) **reports number and percent with no score

N

Y

N

N

N

Y**

N

Connecticut

Alternate Assessment

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Delaware

Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment (DAPA) **with enrolled

N

Y**

N

N

N

Y

N

Florida

Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR) **found only percent of all students, not the rate of those expected to take it

Y

Y

N

N**

N

N

N

Georgia

Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Hawaii

Alternate Assessment (GLAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Idaho

Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA) *K-3rd grade

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Illinois

Illinois Alternate Assessment (IAA)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Indiana

Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Iowa

Alternate Assessment
**with enrolled

N

Y**

N

Y

N

N

N

Kansas

Alternate Assessment: KAMM
Assessment **reported regular and alternate combined

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Portfolio

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Kentucky

Alternate Portfolio Assessment

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Louisiana

Alternate Assessment Levels 1 (LAA-1) *APR has

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Alternate Assessment Level 2 (LAA-2)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Maine

Personalized Alternate Assessment Portfolios (PAAP)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Maryland

Alternate Maryland School Assessment (ALT-MSA) **not reported by assessment or by reason not tested

N

Y

N**

N**

N**

N**

N**

Massachusetts

Alternate on AAS **Rate combines MCAs tests

Y

Y

N

N**

N

N

Y

Michigan

Alternate Assessment (MI-Access)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Minnesota

Alternate Assessment (AAS)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Mississippi

MAAECF

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Missouri

MAP-Alternate

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Montana

Alternate Assessment NRT

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Alternate Assessment CRT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Nebraska

Alternate Assessment

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

Nevada

Nevada Alternate Scales of Academic Achievement (NASAA)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

New Hampshire

Alternate Assessment (NH-Alt) **with enrolled

Y

Y**

Y

N

N

Y

N

New Jersey

Alternate Proficiency Assessment (APA)

N

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

New Mexico

Alternate Assessment

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

New York

New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSSA)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

North Carolina

North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Grade

N

Y

 

 

N

 

 

N

 

 

N

 

 

N

 

 

N

 

 

North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Course

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

NC EXTEND1

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

NC EXTEND2

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

North Dakota

North Dakota Alternate Assessment (NDALT) **reported as not tested for regular assessment

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

N

Ohio

Alternate Assessment GLAS **reported combined with regular tests.

N

N

N

N**

N

N

N

Oklahoma

Alternate Assessment (OAAP)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Modified (OMAAP)
**reported by accommodated status

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

N

Oregon

Extended Assessments (EA)

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Career and Life Role Assessment System (CLRAS) *No one took

N

Y*

N

Y

N

N

N

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment (PASA)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Rhode Island

Alternate Assessment
**reported as not tested on regular assessment

Y

Y**

N

N

N

N

N

South Carolina

SC-ALT

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

South Dakota

Dakota STEP-A

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Tennessee

TCAP-Alt

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Texas

State-Developed Alternate Assessment-II (SDAA-II)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Utah

Alternate Assessment

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Vermont

Alternate Assessment

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Virginia

Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Virginia Grade Level Alternative Assessment (VGLAA)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Washington

WAAS portfolio

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

WASL Basic

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

West Virginia

Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA) *APR has

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) **Reports total enrolled and percent not tested is combined with regular test.

N

N**

N

N

N**

N

N

Wyoming

Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students, Alternate (PAWS-ALT)
**State has separate Excel report with data but was decided not in similar manner as data for other students

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

Disaggregated Participation Data for Unique States with Identified Alternate Assessments in 2006-2007

Unique States

Test 

 

Percent of Students by test (e.g.,4% in Alternate)

Number of Students Tested

Number of Students Not Tested

Percent of Students Tested

Percent of Students Not Tested

Number and/or Percent Exempt or Excluded

 

 

Number and/or Percent Absent

District of Columbia

Alternate Assessment

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Guam

Alternate Assessment

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Puerto Rico

PPEA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 


Appendix G

Disaggregated Regular Assessment Performance Information for Students with Disabilities for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-2007

Note: Shaded cells indicate unclear (e.g., aggregated grade level or subject level) reporting and asterisks, an (*) indicates that the state wanted to note that the information could be derived, and (**) indicates a state note at left under “Test.”

State

Test

Percent in Each Achievement Level

Percent in Each PR* Group

Percent Proficient

Percent Not Proficient

Number in Each Achievement Level

Number Proficient

Number Not Proficient

Other Score

Alabama

DAW

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AHSGE

Y

N

N*

N

N

N

N

N

SAT-10

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Y

ARMT

Y

N

N*

N

N

N

N

N

Alaska

SBA

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

HSGQE

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

TerraNova

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Arizona

TerraNova (none)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AIMS

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Mean SS

AIMS HS

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Mean SS

Arkansas

ITBS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ABE

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

EoC (ABE HS)

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

California

CSTs

Y

NA

N*

N*

N

N

N

Mean ss

CAT-6

NA

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Npr for avg score

Colorado

CSAP

Y

N

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

Connecticut

CMT

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

N

Avg scaled score

CAPT

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

Delaware

DSTP

N

Y

Y

Y

N

N

N

Avg NCE and N

Florida

FCAT **for 10th grade only, other grades marked NA or split by with and without accommodation

Y

N

Y**

N

N

N

N

Mean ss and Mean Dev. ss

FCAT NRT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Georgia

EOCT

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

GHSGT

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CRCT

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

EGWA

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Hawaii

HSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Idaho

DMA/DWA

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

ISAT

Y (had level ranges key)

N

Y

 

N

N

N

N

Y
(had level ranges with key)

IRI

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

Y

Illinois

ISAT

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

PSAE

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Indiana

ISTEP+

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Mean scaled score, etc.

GQE

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Mean scaled score

 

Core 40 ECAs

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Iowa

ITBS/ITED

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Kansas

KAS **reports combined with alternate tests

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Kentucky

Plan (10th)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

KCCT *data can be derived from other reported categories

Y

N

N*

N*

N

N

N

Scaled score

Louisiana

GEE 21

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

N

LEAP

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

iLEAP

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Maine

MEA

Y

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

MHSA

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Maryland

MSA *data can be derived from other reported categories

Y

N*

Y

N*

Y

N*

N*

N

HSA

Y

N*

N*

N*

Y

N*

N*

N

Massachusetts

MCAS

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Michigan

MEAP

Y

N

Y

N

N

N

N

Mean scale score

Minnesota

MCA-II

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Avg. scores

BST

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Avg. scores

GRAD

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N

Avg. scores

Mississippi

MCT

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

WA

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

SATP

N

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Missouri

MAP

Y

N

N

N

N

N

N