NCEO Logo
Bookmark and Share

State Reports on the Participation and Performance of English Language Learners with Disabilities in 2006-2007

Technical Report 54

Debra Albus • Martha Thurlow • Kristi Liu

May 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., & Liu, K. (2009). State reports on the participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities in 2006-2007 (Technical Report 54). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.


Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
Method
Results
     2006-2007 Participation and Performance Review
     2006-2007 Participation
     2006-2007 Performance
     Comparison of Participation and Performance Data Across Years
     2006-2007 Performance Results
     2006-2007 Other Data Reported by States
Discussion
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
Appendix J
Appendix K

 


Executive Summary

NCLB legislation focuses attention on high expectations for all students in learning grade level academic content, and requires that disaggregated participation and performance data be reported for students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs). Although not required by law, some states have reported data disaggregated for students with disabilities who are also ELLs. This study summarizes the extent to which states reported these data in 2006-2007, and how the online reporting of participation and performance for these students in 2006-2007 compared to previous years.

Overall, many states still were not reporting on this population on state assessments. From 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, the number of states reporting either participation or performance, or both, on any state assessment increased from 3 to 20 states. More states (N=17) reported these data for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), followed by English language proficiency assessments for Title III accountability (N=7). The number reporting these data for regular state assessments actually decreased (N=1). In 2006-2007, more states reported other types of information for this population, including data on accommodated administration on state assessments, on other language versions of state assessments, and data for an alternate reading assessment in English.

The performance of ELLs with disabilities on AA-AAS compared to the total number of students taking AA-AAS was somewhat surprising given that previous data reports have suggested that ELLs with disabilities tend to have a lower percentage of students scoring proficient than their English proficient peers on regular assessments. The findings suggest that the ELLs with disabilities taking the AA-AAS across several states either (1) receive excellent instruction as a group to have a higher number scoring proficient than all students assessed, (2) have less severe disabilities than their English proficient peers, or (3) have been inappropriately placed in the AA-AAS. Language acquisition issues also could interact with these or other possible explanations. It may be that the AA-AAS has fewer barriers that affect ELLs than do other assessments. The number of students in these data is low, so we also note caution in interpreting the practical significance of the differences in performance.

On English language proficiency assessments, ELLs with disabilities usually had an equal or lower percentage scoring proficient compared to ELLs without disabilities on measures of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. However, in a couple of states, there were data that showed a higher percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient on a portion of a state assessment (e.g., listening and speaking) than the total of all ELLs who took the assessment in a particular grade.

It is important to continue to focus on the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities in order to gauge how well they are doing in the various state assessments and accountability systems of which they are a part. Further, it is important not only to describe whether and how states are reporting on this diverse subpopulation, but ultimately to look at how they are doing on state assessments and to use that information to improve their education.


Introduction

NCLB legislation has focused attention on high expectations for all students in learning grade level academic content, and has required that disaggregated participation and performance data be reported for students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs). Although not required by law, some states have reported data disaggregated further, for students with disabilities who are also ELLs.

Some studies have been conducted using these public data, including reports on the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities on Minnesota’s graduation exams for 1999-2000 (Liu, Barrera, Thurlow, Guven, & Shyyan, 2005) and 2000-2001 (Liu, Thurlow, Barrera, Guven, & Shyyan, 2005). Similar studies looked at their performance on Minnesota’s regular state achievement assessments for 2000-2001 (Albus, Barrera, Thurlow, Guven, & Shyyan, 2004) and 2001-2002 (Albus, Thurlow, Barrera, Guven, & Shyyan, 2004), with a further study using district and state level data (Thurlow & Liu, 2001). Data reported on ELLs with disabilities for 2002-2003 captured a broader picture of the data that were reported publicly for these students and how the students were faring nationwide in terms of academic achievement (Albus & Thurlow, 2005). This study aimed to update the national data by summarizing publicly reported data for ELLs with disabilities for 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 assessments.

In the report on 2002-2003 data (Albus & Thurlow, 2005), six states reported online the disaggregated participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities on regular state assessments, including versions in other languages. Three states disaggregated this information for state alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, two states for language proficiency assessments, and one state for alternative state assessments that did not fit into the typical categories of assessments. Participation rates for reporting states were between 97% and 99% for the elementary school level and between 93% and 107% at the middle school level. The 107% rate, according to the state, was due to students enrolled in one grade but tested in another. In high school, rates were 80-91% for 2 states. The performance of ELLs with disabilities, for the few states reporting, showed that across grade levels, the percentages of proficient students fell below their peers of general education students, ELLs without disabilities, and students with disabilities who were proficient in English. The current study was designed to answer the following questions:

1. To what extent are states reporting data publicly on ELLs with disabilities for 2006-2007?

2. How does online reporting of participation and performance for these students in 2006-2007 compare to previous years?


Method

In January 2007, NCEO staff searched state education Web sites for data disaggregated for students with disabilities who were also English language learners for all state administered assessments. Data were collected for both 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years for the 50 regular states. Summaries were developed for whether states reported participation and performance on state assessments and descriptively how a state reported these data (e.g., number tested, number exempted, etc.).

Descriptive summaries of the data we found were then sent to state assessment directors for verification via e-mail correspondence in April 2008. Appendices A and B provide a sample of the e-mailed letter and summary tables sent to states. The last verification response was received in July 2008. Eighteen states responded with verification confirmations about data accuracy.

The initial data were collected from regular state assessment reports posted online in a variety of formats (e.g., PDF, Word, report generators, etc.). However, if a state submitted published reports in the mail, these were included in our data gathering. We did not collect data from reports that states were required to submit to the federal government, such as state performance plans (SPPs) or annual performance reports (APRs) that are required for reporting data on students with disabilities.

The regular assessments described in this report include those used in state NCLB accountability systems. Unless otherwise noted, alternate assessments included in this analysis and represented in figures are limited to alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), which are intended for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. All statewide assessments specifically given to ELLs were gathered and included in the appendices (e.g., English language proficiency assessments, translation of regular state assessments), but the data used in the figures are only those that states used for English language proficiency assessments for Title III accountability purposes. If data were available for other assessments, they are noted in the text (e.g., alternate assessments based on grade level achievement standards, norm referenced achievement test in Spanish, etc.).

English language learners with a disability in this report refers to those students identified as an English language learner (e.g., limited English proficiency) and as requiring special education services or a 504 accommodation plan for a disability. The sections of this report that compare performance within states for English language proficiency (ELP) assessments and AA-AAS use a comparison group of all students taking each assessment. This means that for the ELP assessment, the "All" comparison group includes all ELLs with or without disabilities who took the assessment. For the AA-AAS, the "All" comparison group includes all students with disabilities in the AA-AAS regardless of language proficiency status, unless otherwise noted. Where specific states had unique reporting categories that were not similar across states (e.g., separated data by current ELL and various monitoring categories, or by limited English proficient [LEP] and non English proficient [NEP]), these are clearly noted.

In this report we present data for elementary, middle, and high school by selecting one grade per level. The representative grades we used were 4th grade for elementary, 8th for middle school, and 10th for high school. In instances where data for a grade were not available, we selected data from one grade below. If data for one grade below were not available, we used data from the grade above.


Results

The results in this report focus first on assessment participation and performance for 2006-2007. Then we compare those results to the data from 2005-2006.

2006-2007 Participation and Performance Overview

Figure 1 shows the consistency of reporting of participation and performance data across three types of state assessments administered in NCLB accountability systems in 2006-2007. These assessment types were: regular state assessments, alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), and Title III assessments used for measuring English language proficiency in reading, writing, listening, and speaking.

For 2006-2007, only one state (Minnesota), reported participation and performance data on all three types of assessments for ELLs with disabilities. Three other states (Alaska, California, and Texas) reported participation and performance data for two types of assessments. A larger number of states (N=13) reported data for ELLs with disabilities for at least one type of assessment. Thirty states had no information reported for participation or performance disaggregated by ELLs with disabilities on any state assessments. The information used to create Figure 1 is found in Appendices C, D, and E.

Figure 2 shows the percentage of states reporting either participation or performance data on ELLs with disabilities across the three types of assessments for 2006-2007. Only one state reported data for a regular assessment. Seventeen states reported data for a state AA-AAS, and seven states reported data for a Title III English language proficiency assessment. Of the 17 states that reported on an AA-AAS, 14 reported both participation and performance, 1 reported participation only, and 2 reported performance only. The breakdown of data for 2005-2006 was nearly identical. Appendices C, D and E present the state data that were aggregated to produce Figure 2.

Figure 1. States Reporting 2006-2007 Disaggregated Participation and Performance Data for ELLs with Disabilities Across Regular, AA-AAS, and Title III Assessments in NCLB Accountability Systems *

Figure 1

*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 type; these data could be presented for the state as a whole, by grade ranges, or by grade.

 

Figure 2. Number of States Reporting Participation or Performance for ELLs with Disabilities for 2006-2007 by Assessment Type

Figure 2 

 

2006-2007 Participation

Regular Assessments

There was only one state that reported participation data for ELLs with disabilities for a regular assessment in the NCLB accountability system in 2006-2007 (see Appendix F). That state, Minnesota, reported participation by number of students tested, number of students not tested, percent of students tested, percent of students not tested, and the number or percent of students exempted or excluded.

Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards

Figure 3 shows the approaches states used in reporting data on ELLs with disabilities on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards for 2006-2007 (see Appendix G). Of those states reporting participation data, most reported by number of students tested (N=12) followed by the number and /or percent of students exempted or excluded (N=6). A couple states reported the percent of students tested and the number or percent of students absent.

Figure 3. Number of States Reporting Participation by Various Approaches for ELLs with Disabilities on AA-AAS in 2006-2007

Figure 3 

 

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Seven states (Alaska, California, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and Texas) disaggregated participation data for ELLs with disabilities in 2006-2007 for Title III English language proficiency assessments (see Appendix E). However, one of these states (Alaska), did not disaggregate data by grade so is not represented in Figure 4. Of the six states reporting by grade, all reported the number of students tested, and at least one state (Texas) reported by three other categories related to whether students were not rated, were exempted, or were too few to report (see Figure 4). Students "not rated" were actually reported with further sub categories of either having extenuating circumstances or not rated for other reasons.

Figure 4. Number of States Reporting Participation by Various Approaches for ELLs with Disabilities on English Language Proficiency Assessments in 2006-2007

Figure 4 

 

2006-2007 Performance

Regular Assessments

One state reported performance data for ELLs with disabilities for a regular NCLB accountability assessment for 2006-2007. This state, Minnesota, reported performance using the following approaches: Percent in each achievement level, percent not proficient, number of students in each achievement level, and average scores. Appendix H provides information on performance reported for regular assessments.

Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards

Among the states that reported performance data for ELLs with disabilities on AA-AAS for 2006-2007, most reported the percent of students in each achievement level (N=10) followed by the percent of students not proficient (N=7) and number of students in each achievement level (N=6) (see Figure 5). Another group of states (N=5) reported some other type of score. The fewest number of states reported percent of students proficient on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (N=2). Appendix I provides additional information on performance reporting for AA-AAS.

Figure 5. Number and Percent of States Reporting Performance for ELLs with Disabilities by Various Approaches on AA-AAS in 2006-2007

Figure 5 

 

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Of the six states that reported performance data for ELLs with disabilities on an English Language Proficiency Assessment for 2006-2007, five reported the percent in each achievement level (see Figure 6, and Appendix E). Three states reported the mean scale score, and two or fewer states reported performance data by other categories.

Comparison of Participation and Performance Data Across Years

This section compares disaggregated data for participation and performance that were reported for ELLs with disabilities in 2006-2007(Appendices C, D, and E), to data from 2002-03 (Albus & Thurlow, 2005; and reproduced in Appendix J). First, the level of disaggregation each year is compared across years, taking into account each of the three main types of assessments that states might administer to an ELL with a disability. These include regular assessments, alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, and English language proficiency assessments used for Title III accountability purposes.

Figure 6. Number of States Reporting Performance by Various Approaches for ELLs with Disabilities on English Language Proficiency Assessments in 2006-2007

Figure 6 

 

Figure 7 shows an overview of the level of reporting for participation and performance for the three types of assessments. Compared to 2002-2003, there has been some growth in the number of states reporting disaggregated data, from 6 states to 20. There also was a slight increase in the number of states with more complete reporting practices (e.g., both participation and performance for more assessments rather than participation or performance for fewer types of assessments). For 2006-2007, there was one state that disaggregated data for all three assessment types. These data are reflected in Appendices C, D, E, and J.

Figure 7. Participation and Performance Reported Across Years for Regular States on Three Assessment Types

Figure 7 

Key: P or P = Participation or performance, PP = Participation and performance.

The three assessment types are: Regular Assessment, AA-AAS, and English language proficiency assessment for Title III.

 

Figure 8 shows a comparison across years focusing only on how states reported on regular state assessments. We can see that although the number of states reporting data for ELLs with disabilities overall increased over time, the number of states reporting data on regular assessments has actually gone down, from three states to just one. The one state reporting for 2006-2007 reported both participation and performance, as did the three states for 2002-2003. Appendices C and J present the data used in Figure 8.

Figure 8. Regular State Participation and Performance Disaggregated Across Years for Regular Assessments

Figure 8 

Note: "All" means state disaggregated data for all regular assessments.

Looking across years, the number of states disaggregating data for alternate assessments (of any type) increased from just 3 states to 17 (see Figure 9). The total number reporting both participation and performance rose from 3 to 14 states. Across the years, the definition of alternate assessment was clarified, with a focus in the recent years on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Even with the narrowing of the definition shown in the figure, there is still an increase across years. Appendices D and J provide more detailed information across the years summarized in Figure 9.

Data across years for English language proficiency assessments are shown in Figure 10. This assessment type showed a slight increase across years from two to seven states reporting participation and performance. Most states did not disaggregate data for ELLs with disabilities on Title III assessments. Appendices E and J provide more detailed information.

Figure 9. Regular State Participation and Performance Disaggregated Across Years for Alternate Assessments*

Figure 9 

*For the year 2002-2003, alternate assessments included assessments that were not necessarily based on alternate achievement standards. For the other two years, data were only for AA-AAS.

Note: Often a state will only have one AA-AAS, but "ALL" in this figure indicates a state disaggregated data for all AA-AAS in a state (e.g., a state may have a separate name for assessment at high school level).

 

Figure 10. Regular State Participation and Performance Disaggregated Across Years for English Language Proficiency Assessments

Figure 10 

 

2006-2007 Performance Results

Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards

Although there were too few data to chart regular assessment performance data for the 2006-2007 year, there were enough states with disaggregated data for AA-AAS to examine their results. We examined results from the AA-AAS for ELLs with disabilities for elementary (4th grade), middle (9th grade), and high school (10th grade).

In Table 1, which presents elementary data on AA-AAS, most states showed that the percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient was either the same or slightly less than all students assessed on AA-AAS reading. One exception was California, where ELLs with disabilities (N=316) had a slightly higher percent scoring proficient compared to all students with disabilities assessed on the AA-AAS (N=913), (indicated by shading in the table). The California assessment is divided into five levels corresponding to the level of instruction provided to students. Level I covers a range of students enrolled in grades 1-11 and Levels III, IV, and V corresponding more closely to enrolled grade bands. For elementary mathematics, four states showed ELLs with disabilities having slightly to moderately higher percentages of ELLs with disabilities proficient compared to all students with disabilities who participated in AA-MAS. Many of the differences favoring ELLs with disabilities may be non-significant, but the change in direction was interesting.

Table 1. Elementary Reading AA-AAS: Percent Proficient for ELLs Compared to All* Students Assessed

Reading Percent Proficient and N Assessed

Math Percent Proficient and N Assessed

State

ELLs

n

All

N

ELLs

n

All

N

Alabama

44

--

59

--

50

--

55

--

Alaska

33

12

53

65

80

12

66

65

California Level I

82

316

78

913

49

317

46

912

California Levels III, IV, and V

62

1221

59

3399

72

1219

74

3394

Colorado1

65

20

79

521

35

20

38

508

Illinois

53

--

66

--

46

--

60

--

Minnesota

56

59

59

803

76

54

60

737

North Carolina

83

36

83

754

81

36

79

754

Nevada

3

58

4

229

5

58

5

229

Texas2

94

5,482

94

24,430

96

4,888

96

22,514

Note: Shading indicates states where ELLs with disabilities had a higher percentage scoring proficient.

*"All" students assessed include non ELLs and ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities who take AA-AAS unless otherwise noted. "ELL" includes all ELLs unless otherwise noted.

-- No participation or no number tested

1 Colorado "ELL" data includes only limited English proficient (LEP) status, not non-English proficient (NEP) or fluent English proficient status. There were too few students to report publicly in fluent English proficient status. The "All" group for Colorado did not include ELL status students.

2 Texas "ELL" data does not include monitoring status categories, only current LEP.

 

For middle schools (see Table 2), the pattern of performance observed in elementary school continued. For reading, one state reported a slightly higher percentage proficient among ELLs with disabilities compared to all students assessed on the AA-AAS. In mathematics, six states had higher percentages of ELLs with disabilities proficient. The reported differences for percent proficient among ELLs with disabilities compared to all students with disabilities for mathematics ranged from 1% to 12% higher. The noted differences may be non-significant.

Table 2. Middle School Reading AA-AAS: Percent Proficient for ELLs Compared to All* Students Assessed

Reading Percent Proficient and N Assessed

Math Percent Proficient and N Assessed

State

ELLs

n

All

N

ELLs

n

All

N

Alabama

57

--

64

--

50

--

55

--

Alaska

43

7

44

63

57

7

47

63

California Level I

77

291

78

910

53

291

50

907

California Level III, IV, and V

64

1153

64

3598

54

1151

52

3589

Colorado1

65

15

78

535

**

**

**

**

Illinois

46

--

63

--

37

--

54

--

Minnesota

81

31

80

818

58

33

46

813

North Carolina

76

25

84

850

80

25

76

850

Nevada

6

48

9

235

8

48

5

235

Texas2

91

5,640

92

27,075

90

3,222

89

28,695

Note: Shading indicates states where ELLs with disabilities had a higher percentage scoring proficient.

*All students assessed include non ELLs and ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities who take AA-AAS.

**Too few to report.

1Colorado "ELL" data includes only limited English proficient (LEP) status, not non-English proficient (NEP) or fluent English proficient status. There were too few students to report publicly in fluent English proficient status. The "All" group for Colorado did not include ELL status students.

2 Texas "ELL" data does not include monitoring status categories, only current LEP.

 

For high school, seven of the nine states reported performance of ELLs with disabilities that as a group exceeded the percent proficient reported for all students assessed in the AA-AAS. In high school, somewhat different patterns emerged. Equal numbers of states reported higher percentages of ELLs with disabilities proficient compared to all students with disabilities assessed in AA-AAS, reading and mathematics. In five states, the percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient was 2-24% higher than all students assessed in AA-AAS reading. In another five states, the percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient was 1-15% higher in mathematics. Most of these higher differences in percentages occurred where smaller numbers of ELLs with disabilities were assessed, although not in every instance. Again, the differences may be non-significant.

Table 3. High School Reading AA-AAS: Percent Proficient for ELLs Compared to All* Students Assessed

Reading Percent Proficient and N Assessed

Math Percent Proficient and N Assessed

State

ELLs

n

All

N

ELLs

n

All

N

Alabama

53

--

60

--

53

--

59

--

Alaska

44

9

38

88

56

9

41

88

California Level I

74

246

75

837

51

245

46

833

California Level III, IV and V

61

955

50

3354

56

951

55

3345

Colorado1

75

16

66

471

**

**

**

**

Illinois

55

--

65

--

63

--

58

--

Minnesota

82

34

80

832

41

29

35

884

North Carolina

80

10

84

850

90

10

77

651

Texas2

83

1,851

85

10,971

85

3,222

86

21,659

West Virginia

100

8

76

216

75

8

75

217

*All students assessed include non ELLs and ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities who take AA-AAS.

**Too few to report.

-- No participation or no number tested

1Colorado "ELL" data includes only limited English proficient (LEP) status, not non-English proficient (NEP) or fluent English proficient status. There were too few students to report publicly in fluent English proficient status. The "All" group for Colorado did not include ELL status students.

2 Texas "ELL" data does not include monitoring status categories, only current LEP.

 

English Language Proficiency Assessments

Although five states had reported data for English language proficiency assessments, four states reported in such a way that performance could be compared across three school levels. One state reported the total performance across all grades, so was not included here. New York reported by grade bands so the performance levels chosen for the table (grades 2-4, 7-8, 9-12) do not follow the typical representative grade method used throughout the report as described in the method section. Overall, most of the performance data for English language learners with disabilities (shown in Table 4) indicated that the percentage of ELLs without disabilities scoring proficient was equal to or higher than those ELL with disabilities. Two states had one or more instances of the reverse, reporting higher percentages of ELLS with disabilities scoring proficient than all students assessed in combined listening and speaking for middle and high schools, and speaking in high school. These two states had higher numbers of ELLs with disabilities tested, with between 2,300 and 3,500 ELLs with disabilities assessed at middle and high school levels in New York, and about 4,000 assessed in high school in Texas.

Table 4. English Language Proficiency Assessments: Percent Proficient for ELLs With Disabilities Compared to All* Students Assessed

 

Percent Proficient

Overall Performance

Percent Proficient

State

Reading

Writing

Speaking

Listening

EWD

All

EWD**

All

EWD

All

EWD

All

EWD

All

Elementary

California E and A1

9

30

California Criterion2

8

28

Minnesota

11

35

4

21

52**

70**

New York

38**

60**

85**

87**

Texas

46

78

25

51

48

62

56

71

Middle School

California E and A

22

47

California Criterion

15

41

Minnesota

10

32

12

35

70**

72**

New York

27**

39**

82**

72**

Texas

83

87

43

52

62

62

67

69

High School

California E and A

14

36

California Criterion

11

32

Minnesota

8

23

9

23

56**

59**

New York

36**

42**

64**

53**

Texas

68

78

49

56

65

61

69

69

Note: Shading indicates where ELLs with disabilities scored a higher percentage proficient.

*"All students" refers to all English language learners who took the assessment with or without disabilities.

** EWD refers to ELLs with disabilities.

1 E and A includes any student scores with early advanced or advanced scores, not taking into account criterion performance across domains.

2 Criterion includes students with an overall score of early advanced or advanced, with scores at intermediate or above for all domains. Reading, writing, speaking and listening domains only reported by mean scale scores.

** Indicates state reported combined scores, either reading and writing, or listening and speaking performance were reported together.

 

2006-2007 Other Data Reported by States

Other information gathered for this study included information on accommodated participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities. We also gathered information on the extent to which states posted reports for ELLs with disabilities on their Web sites in other languages. We acknowledge that states and local education agencies provide reports to parents in other languages other than English per NCLB requirements. However, it seemed important to summarize how states are reporting data for these students in other languages in online formats also.

Accommodated Students

A small number of states reported the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities using accommodations on state assessments (see Table 5, and Appendix K). Table 5 displays the terminology used and the level of reporting by states.

Two states reported accommodations data for a Title III English language proficiency assessment. One state reported on an alternate assessment other than an AA-AAS (MI), and one state reported on a regular assessment (TX). Texas also reported accommodated assessment scores for its regular state assessment, the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS). On this test it reported data for students with disabilities using LAT (linguistically accommodated testing). It also reported data for its Spanish version of the TAKS. Although not every student taking the Spanish version of the TAKS is necessarily an English language learner, we note it here because in the reported data on LAT testing the state included break-out categories for students with disabilities, which would translate to ELLs with disabilities needing accommodations.

Multilingual Reporting.

Information was also collected on whether states posted reports online for ELLs with disabilities in other languages. One state, Illinois, had a data report available online in another language for this group—the language was Spanish. Although it had a Spanish version report for all state assessments administered, it had data for ELLs with disabilities reported for the IMAGE and IAA (Illinois Alternate Assessment). Another state, Colorado, also had an online Spanish report for its regular state assessment, but it did not have clear data for ELLs with disabilities because its assessments may be taken by Spanish speakers who are not necessarily ELLs.

Table 5. 2006-2007 Summary of States that Reported State-Level Information about Accommodations

State1

Tests

Terminology used

By
content/ grade?

Participation

Performance

Comments

Alaska

Alaska English Language Proficiency Assessment

IEP/504 Accommodations

Yes

Yes

Yes

Michigan

ACCESS-Functional Independence

Standard and Nonstandard

Yes

Yes

Yes

All, and ELL only (constituting ELLs with disabilities)

ELPA

Standard and Nonstandard

Yes

Yes

Yes

ELLs with and without disabilities

Texas

TAKS

Students tested with bundled dyslexia accommodations

Yes

Yes

Yes

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

TAKS

LAT (Linguistically Accommodated Testing)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Reports for both English and Spanish versions of TAKS

1 Wisconsin noted that schools and districts have access to data on whether or not 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.


Discussion

It is obvious in looking across years that although there has been an increase in the number of states reporting disaggregated data for ELLs with disabilities, there are still many states that are not reporting data on this population on state assessments. The largest increase was from 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, from 3 to 20 states reporting either participation, performance or both. Over time, most of the growth was in states reporting for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. There was an actual decrease in the number of states reporting data on their regular state assessments, from three states to only one in 2006-2007. Slightly more states reported on Title III assessments to measure English language proficiency, increasing from two to seven states.

Compared to 2002-2003, more states were reporting other types of information for this population also. Three states reported data for ELLs with disabilities using accommodations on state assessments. These three reported both participation and performance for at least one state assessment type, whether regular, alternate, or English language proficiency assessment. Within the category of other information reported we included instances where states reported data although they did not fit into the three main assessments. For example, California reported data for students with disabilities taking Aprenda – a Spanish language norm referenced achievement assessment; Colorado reported detailed data for students with disabilities for its Spanish language version of its state test (including data by accommodation); Illinois reported data on the IMAGE which was an alternate reading assessment for ELLs that has since been discontinued (in 2007-2008); and New York reported data for students with disabilities taking its state foreign language assessments. Although the California and Colorado did report data for students with disabilities, it is unclear from the data how many students are both ELL and have a disability because some bilingual students take these assessments.

The performance of ELLs with disabilities on AA-AAS compared to the total number of students taking AA-AAS was somewhat surprising given that previous data reports have suggested that ELLs with disabilities tend to have a lower percentage of students scoring proficient than their English proficient peers on regular assessments. The findings suggest that the ELLs with disabilities taking the AA-AAS across several states either (1) receive excellent instruction as a group to have a higher number scoring proficient than all students assessed, (2) have less severe disabilities than their English proficient peers, or (3) have been inappropriately placed in the AA-AAS. It is possible, further, that language acquisition issues could interact with these or other possible explanations.

It is important to note, too, that even in states where the English proficient students had more students scoring proficient on AA-AAS, ELLs also appeared to have a similar or slightly smaller percentage scoring proficient. These results overall suggest the need to take a closer look at participation policies and their implementation for ELLs with disabilities on these assessments. It may be that these assessments have fewer barriers for ELLs compared to regular assessments, that the barriers that affect ELLs in other assessments are not so evident in AA-AAS, or that the ELLs participating in these states may simply have slightly less severe disabilities than non-ELL peers who are being assessed. One could argue, as in regular assessments, that ELLs with limited English proficiency may struggle more with English language arts content than mathematics. However, this argument would not be supported by the data in the high school grades, where seven states out of nine reported a higher percentage of ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient in either reading or mathematics compared to all students assessed.

Other performance data for English language proficiency assessments showed that ELLs with disabilities usually had an equal or lower percentage scoring proficient compared to ELLs without disabilities on measures of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. However, for one state, New York, ELLs with disabilities had a higher percentage scoring proficient in combined speaking and listening scores compared to all ELLs assessed for middle school and high school. Another state, Texas, also had more ELLs with disabilities scoring proficient on a speaking assessment at the high school level. These differences may be due to variations in the level of difficulty in these specific listening and speaking assessments, accommodation policies or their implementation, or the types of disabilities for which the majority of these ELLs were receiving services. It was noted previously that sometimes a state’s speaking and listening accommodations policies for ELLs with disabilities varied considerably from those of other states, such as New York (Albus & Thurlow, 2007). But it is not certain how much, if any, influence the policies may have had in the New York data presented here because there may be other reasons for the performance differences.

Overall, it is important to continue to focus on the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities in order to gauge how well they are doing in the various state assessments and accountability systems of which they are a part. Further, it is important to not only describe whether and how states are reporting on this diverse subpopulation, but to ultimately look at how they are doing on state assessments and to use that information to improve their education.


References

Albus, D., Barrera, M., Thurlow, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2004). 2000-2001 participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (ELLs with Disabilities Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2005). Beyond subgroup reporting: English language learners with disabilities in 2002-2003 online state assessment reports (ELLs with Disabilities Report 10). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2007). English language learners with disabilities in state English language proficiency assessments: A review of state accommodation policies (Synthesis Report 66). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., Barrera, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2004). 1999-2000 Participation and performance of English language learners with disabilities on Minnesota standards-based assessments (ELLs with Disabilties Report 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Liu, K., Barrera, M., Thurlow, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (1999-2000) of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Liu, K., Thurlow, M., Barrera, M., Guven, K., & Shyyan, V. (2005). Graduation exam participation and performance (2000-2001) of English language learners with disabilities (ELLs with Disabilities Report 3). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M., & Liu, K. (2001). State and district assessments as an avenue to equity and excellence for English language learners with disabilities (LEP Projects Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National center on educational Outcomes.


Appendix A

Sample Letter Sent to State Assessment Directors

 

Staff at the National Center on Educational Outcome collected data for English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities on your state’s Web site for the 05-06 and 06-07 School years. We request your help in verifying the information in the attached tables.

NOTE-This is different and separate from the previous NCEO request for verifying data for students with disabilities in online reports that was mailed out.

The attached tables include these data for ELLs with disabilities:

Any state tests that report data for these students

How participation and performance were reported

Accommodated administration information

Provision of reports in other languages online

If your state has posted data not reflected in these tables, please indicate that in your response with specific Web address(es) to regular state reports.

Please verify the information by email or phone (612) 626-0323. If you would rather fax a reply to our request, you may do so at (612) 624-0879. Also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. We hope to hear from you by May 30th, 2008.

Thank you for taking the time to verify this information.

Sincerely,

Deb Albus
Research Fellow


Appendix B

Example of Verification Tables Sent to State Assessment Directors

Alabama, 2005-06 and 2006-07

Table 1: Results for ELLS with Disabilities 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

In Accountability System?

Yes/No

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

2005-2006

2006-2007

Partic.

Perform.

Partic.

Perform.

Alabama Alternate

AAS*

 

1 - 12

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

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

Table 2: Participation Information for English language learners 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

Alternate

Y (% tested and % in group) Same for both years

N

N

N

N

N

N

Table 3: Performance Information for English language learners 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

Number in Each Achievement Level

Percent in Each PR* Group

Percent Proficient

Percent Not Proficient

Number Proficient

Number Not Proficient

Average Percentile Rank

Alternate

Y

Same way both years

N

N

N

N

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

 

 

 

Table 5. Reporting in other languages

Test

 

Reports presented in other languages online

Y/N

If Yes, What language(s)?

None

 


Appendix C

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for ELLs with Disabilities on Regular State Tests in the Fifty States and Unique States Across 2005-06 and 2006-07

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

State

 

Assessment Component

 

Grades

 

Subject

 

Disaggregated Data

Test Used for State Accountability Purposes

2005-06

2006-07

Part.

Perf.

Part.

Perf.

Alabama

Direct Assessment of Writing (DAW) [CRT]

5,7,10

Writing

No

No

No

No

No

Alabama High School Graduation Exam (AHSGE) [EXIT]

11,12

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

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

3-8

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

No

No

No

No

No

Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

 

Alaska

Standards Based Assessment (SBA) [CRT]

3-10

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

High School Graduation Qualifying Exam (HSGQE) [EXIT]

10-12

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

TerraNova/CAT-6 [NRT]

5, 7

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

No

No

No

No

No

 

Arizona

TerraNova [NRT]

2-9

Reading/Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

No

No

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

3-8

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

AIMS High School (AIMS HS) [EXIT]

10 -12

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

Arkansas

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) [NRT]

K-9

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

No

No

No

Arkansas Benchmark Exams [CRT]

3-8

Literacy(Reading), Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

End of Course (EOC part of ABE) [CRT]

HS

EOC-Algebra I, EOC-Geometry, Literacy

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

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

3,7

Reading, Language, Math, Spelling

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Connecticut

 

 

Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) [CRT]

10

Reading, Math, Writing, Science

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Florida

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

3-11

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

FCAT NRT (SAT 10)

3-10

Reading (3-10)

Math (3-10)

No

No

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

No

No

No

No

No

Georgia High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) [EXIT]

11

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) [CRT]

1-8

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Eighth Grade Writing Assessment [CRT]

8

Writing

No

No

No

No

No

Hawaii

Hawaii State Assessment (HSA) [CRT]

3-8,10

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

Idaho

Idaho Direct Assessments (DMA/DWA) [CRT]

4-9

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

No

No

No

No

No

Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT) [CRT]

3-8, 10

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) [CRT]

K-3

Reading

No

No

No

No

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

No

No

No

Yes

Prairie State Achievement Exam (PSAE) [CRT]

11

Reading, Math, Science

No

No

No

No

Yes

Indiana

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

3-10

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Graduation Qualifying Exam (GQE) [EXIT]

10

English Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

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

Varies

English 11, Algebra 1

No

No

No

No

No

Iowa

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

3-8, 11

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Kansas

Kansas Assessment System (KAS) [CRT]

*Combines all tests

3-8, 10, 11

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

 

Kentucky

 

Explore (8th) [NRT] and

Plan (10th)[NRT]

6, 9

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Louisiana

Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21) [CRT]

4,8

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

iLEAP [CRT/NRT]

3, 5-7, 9

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

Graduation Exit Exam (GEE 21) [EXIT]

10, 11

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

Maine

 

 

Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) [CRT]

3-8

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

No

No

No

No

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Maryland

Maryland School Assessment (MSA) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Minnesota

Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA II) [CRT]

3-8, 11

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

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

BST state grad phasing out [Exit]

10

Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

GRAD [Exit]

HS

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

 

 

Mississippi

Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) [CRT]

2-8

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Writing Assessment (WA) [CRT]

4,7

Writing

No

No

No

No

No

Subject Area Testing Program (SATP) [CRT]

H S

Algebra I, US History, Biology, English II

No

No

No

No

Yes

Missouri

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

3-8,10, 11

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

No

No

No

No

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

No

No

No

No

No

Montana CRT [CRT]

3-8,10

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Nebraska

Nebraska Statewide Writing Assessment (NSWA) [CRT]

4,8,11

Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

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

4,8,11

Math, Reading

No

No

No

No

Yes

 

Nevada

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

4,7,10

Reading, Math, Science, Language

No

No

No

No

No

Nevada Criterion Referenced Test (NCRT) [CRT]

3-8

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

High School Proficiency Exam (HSPE) [EXIT]

10-11

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Nevada Analytic Writing Examination (NAWE) [CRT]

5, 8

Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

New Hampshire

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) [CRT]

3-8

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

New Jersey

 

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

3-7

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) [CRT]

8

Language Arts Literacy, Math, Science

No

No

No

No

Yes

High School Proficiency Assessment (HSPA) [EXIT]

11

Language Arts Literacy, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

New Mexico

New Mexico Standards Based Assessment (NMSBA) [CRT]

3-9, 11

Reading/Writing, Math, Science

No

No

No

No

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

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Regents Competency Test (RCT) [EXIT]

9-12

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

New York State Assessment Program (NYSAP) [CRT]

3-8

English Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

North Carolina

End-of-Grade (EOG) [CRT]

*No Science, pilot year

3-8, 10

5 and 8

Reading, Math

Science (5 and 8)

No

No

No*

No*

Yes

End-of-Course (EOC) [CRT]

HS

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Computer Skills Test (Includes alternate version) [EXIT]

8-12

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

No

No

No

No

No

North Dakota

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

3-8, 11

Reading/Language, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Ohio

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

3-8

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

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

10, 11

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

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

HS

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Oregon

Oregon Statewide Assessment (OSA) [CRT]

3-8,10

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) [CRT]

3-8,11

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Rhode Island

 

 

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)[CRT]

3-8

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

NSRE [CRT]

HS

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

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

1-2

Reading

No

No

No

No

No*

South Carolina

Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) [CRT]

3-8

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

High School Assessment Program (HSAP) [EXIT]

10

English/Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

South Dakota

 

Dakota STEP Test (STEP) [NRT/CRT]

3-8, 11

5, 8-11

Reading, Math

Science

No

No

No

No

Yes

Stanford Writing Assessment [CRT]

5,7,10

Writing

No

No

No

No

No

Tennessee

 

 

 

 

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

3-8

Reading/Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

TCAP Gateways (TCAP-SA) [CRT]

9-12

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Texas

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

*Reports data for TAKS-LAT accommodated students.

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

No*

No*

No*

No*

Yes

End of Course Assessment [EXIT]

HS

Algebra I

No

No

No

No

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

No

No

Core Criterion-Referenced Tests (CCRT) [CRT]

1-11

Language Arts, Math (1-11), Science (4-11)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Direct Writing Assessment (DWA) [NRT]

6,9

Writing

No

No

No

No

No

Reading on Grade Level (ROGL)[CRT]

1-11

Reading

No

No

No

No

No

Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (UBSCT) [EXIT]

HS

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Vermont

 

 

New Standards Reference Exam (NSRE) [CRT]

10

English/ Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Vermont Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) [CRT]

2

Reading

No

No

No

No

No

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Virginia

Standards of Learning (SOL) [CRT]

3-8,

High School

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

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

West Virginia

West Virginia Educational Standards Test (WESTEST) [CRT]

3-8, 10

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

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Wyoming

Proficiency Assessment for Wyoming Students (PAWS) [CRT]

3-8,11

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

 


Appendix D

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for ELLs with Disabilities on Alternate State Assessments in the Fifty States and Unique States for 2005-06 and 2006-07

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 Data

Test Used for

State

Accountability Purposes

2005-06

2006-07

Part.

Perf.

Part.

Perf.

Alabama

Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA)

 

AAS

1-12

Reading, Math

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Alaska

Alternate

Assessment

AAS

3-10

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

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Arizona

AIMS-Alternate

(AIMS-A)

AAS

3-8

Reading, Math,

Writing, Listening,

Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes

AIMS-A HS

AAS

10 11,12

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

No

No

No

No

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

No

No

Yes

California

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA)

AAS

2-11

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

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Colorado

Colorado Student

Assessment Program Alternate (CSAPA)

AAS

3-10

Reading, Math (3-10),

Writing, Science (5,8)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Connecticut

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8,10

Reading, Math, Writing (communication)

No

No

No

No

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

Yes

Yes

Florida

Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR)

AAS

3-10

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Hawaii

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8,10

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Idaho

Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA)

AAS

K-3

Reading

No

No

No

No

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

No

Yes

Yes

Indiana

Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR)

AAS

3-10

English Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Iowa

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8,11

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Kansas

Alternate Assessment: KAMM

MAS

3-8,10,11

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Portfolio Assessment *Reported combined with other tests

AAS

3-8,10,11

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

No

No

No

No

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) *

No

No

No

No

Yes

Louisiana

Alternate Assessment Levels 1 (LAA-1)

AAS

3-12

English Language Arts, Math, Social Studies, Science

No

No

No

No

Yes

Alternate Assessment Level 2 (LAA-2)

GLAS

4, 8, 10, 11

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Maine

Personalized

Alternate Assessment

Portfolios (PAAP)

AAS

4,8,11

English Language Arts

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

 

No

 

No

No

No

Yes

Maryland

Alternate Maryland School Assessment (ALT-MSA)

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Michigan

Functional Independence ACCESS alternate

Unclear type of standards, AAS or MAS.

AAS

3-8

English/language arts and Mathematics

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Minnesota

Alternate Assessment

*(05-06 only)

GLAS

3-8, 11

Reading, Math

No

No

No*

No*

Yes*

Alternate Assessment (AAS)

AAS

3-8, 10, 11

Reading, Math

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Mississippi

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8

Math, Reading/ Language Arts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Missouri

MAP-Alternate

AAS

4,8,11

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Montana

 

 

Alternate Assessment NRT

AAS

4,8,11

Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

No

Alternate Assessment CRT

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Nebraska

Alternate Assessment

AAS

4,8,12

Math, Reading/Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

Nevada

 

Nevada Alternate Scales of Academic Achievement

(NASAA)

AAS

3-8

Language, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

New Hampshire

Alternate Assessment (NH-Alt)

AAS

10

Reading, Writing, Math

Yes

Yes

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

Yes

Yes

New Mexico

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-12

Reading/Writing, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

New York

 

New York State

Alternate Assessment

(NYSSA)

AAS

3-8,

12

English Language

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

 

No

 

No

No

No

Yes

 

North Carolina

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

GLAS

3-8, 10

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

 

 

No

 

 

No

No

No

Yes

North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for End-of-Course . Computer Alternate reported with regular test.

GLAS

9-12

Biology, Chemistry,

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

 

No

 

No

No

No

Yes

NC EXTEND1

AAS

3-8, 10

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

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

NC EXTEND 2

**Science in prepilot or pilot status

MAS/font>

3 – 8 4,7

Reading, Math,

Writing (4,7), Science (5,8,HS)

No

No

Yes*

Yes*

Yes

North Dakota

North Dakota

Alternate Assessment

(NDALT)

AAS

3-8,11

Reading/Language,

Math

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Ohio

 

 

 

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8, 10

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

Science (10), Social Studies (10

No

No

No

No

Yes

Oklahoma

Alternate Assessment

(OAAP)

AAS

3-8

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

OMAAP

MAS

3-8

RReading, Math, Writing for Engl II only

No/font>

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

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)

No

No

No

No

Yes

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment (PASA)

AAS

3-8, 11

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Rhode Island

Alternate Assessment

AAS

3-8,11

English/Language Arts, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

South Carolina

 

SC-ALT

AAS

3-8, 10

English, Math, Science, Social Studies, and functional and life skills.

No

No

No

No

Yes

South Dakota

Dakota STEP-A

AAS

3-8, 11

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes

Tennessee

 

TCAP-Alt

AAS

3-12

Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

No

No

Yes

Texas

State-Developed

Alternate Assessment-II

(SDAA-II)

AAS

3-11

Reading, Math

 

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Utah

Alternate Assessment

AAS

1-12

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

Vermont

Alternate Assessment

AAS

Varies by type of assessment

No

No

No

No

Yes

 

Virginia

Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP)

*Unclear if the alternate data reported is VGLA, VSEP or VAAP.

AAS

3, 5, 8, 11

Collection of Evidence

No

No*

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

No*

No

No*

Yes

Washington

Washington Alternate Assessment System (WAAS)

AAS

3-8, 10

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

No

No

No

No

Yes

WASL Basic

 

Other

3-8,

10-12

One or more subject areas

No

No

No

No

No

West Virginia

Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA)

AAS

3-8, 10

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA)

*Combined with WCKE.

**Both alternates reported 05-06, Alternate for students with disabilities in 06-07.

AAS

3-8, 10

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

No*

Yes*

No*

Yes*

Yes

Wyoming

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

AAS

3-8,11

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

No

No

Yes

 


Appendix E

Status of Disaggregated Data (Participation and Performance) for ELLs with Disabilities on State Assessments Administered to ELLs or in Another Language in the Fifty States and Unique States Across 2005-06 and 2006-07

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

State

 

Assessment Component

 

Grades

 

Subject

 

Disaggregated Data

Test Used for

Title III, NCLB by type of test

2005-06

2006-07

Part.

Perf.

Part.

Perf.

Alabama

Access for ELLs

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

 

Alaska

Alaska English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELP)

*Not by grade

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening

Yes*

Yes*

Yes*

Yes*

Yes, ELP

Arizona

Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Arkansas

English Language Development Assessment (ELDA)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

California

Aprenda (designated primary language test)

2-11

Reading, math, language, spelling

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, Spanish

California English Language Development Test (CELDT)

K-12

Reading, writing, speaking, listening

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELP

Colorado

Colorado English Language Assessment (CELA)

K-12

Reading, writing, speaking, listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Connecticut

LAS Links

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Delaware

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Florida

Comprehensive English Language Learning Assessment (CELLA)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Georgia

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Hawaii

Hawaiian Aligned Portfolio Assessment (HAPA) For Hawaiian Language Immersion Program

3-4

Reading, Math

No

No

No

No

Yes, Hawaiian

LAS Links

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Idaho

Idaho English Language Assessment (IELA)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Illinois

IMAGE (GLAS*)

3-8, 11

Reading, Mathematics

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes, ELL alternate for reading

Access for ELLs

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Indiana

LAS Links

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Iowa

Iowa-English Language Development Assessment (I-ELDA)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Kansas

Kansas English Language Proficiency Assessment (KELPA)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Kentucky

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Louisiana

ELDA

3-12

Reading, writing, listening, speaking

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELP

Maine

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Maryland

LAS Links

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Massachusetts

Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Listening, & Speaking

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Michigan

ELPA (English language proficiency Assessment)

K-12

Listening, Reading, Writing, Speaking (and has comprehension scores and overall)

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELP

Minnesota

TEAE

K-12

Reading, Writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELP

SOLOM

K-12

Listening, Speaking

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELP

MTELL (GLAS)

3-8, 11

Math

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELL alternate for mathematics

Mississippi

Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (ACCESS for ELLs in 08-09)

3-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Missouri

MAC II

(08-09 using LAS Links)

3-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Montana

MontCAS ELPA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Nebraska

ELDA (no test name for prior year seen)

K-12

Reading, Writing,

Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Nevada

ELPA

3-12

Reading, Writing,

Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

New Hampshire

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

New Jersey

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

New Mexico

NMELPA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

New York

 

NYSESLAT

Notes on other tests in text

K-12

Reading, Writing,

Speaking, Listening

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes , ELP

North Carolina

IDEA English language Proficiency Tests (IPT)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

North Dakota

ND ELPA to Access for ELLs (06-07 year)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Ohio

ELDA through 06-07. Now OTELA based on ELDA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Oklahoma

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Oregon

ELPA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Pennsylvania

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Rhode Island

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

South Carolina

ELDA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

South Dakota

Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (DELP) through 06-07.

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Tennessee

ELDA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Texas

 

RPTE through spring ’07

3-12

Reading

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELP

TOP through spring ‘07

K-12

speaking, listening, writing

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, ELP

Utah

UALPA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Vermont

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Virginia

Stanford English Language Proficiency Test (SELP)

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Washington

WLPT-II

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

West Virginia

WESTELL

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Wisconsin

Access for ELLs

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

Wyoming

WELLA

K-12

Reading, Writing, Speaking, Listening

No

No

No

No

Yes, ELP

 


Appendix F

Disaggregated Participation Information for ELLs with Disabilities on Regular State Assessments for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-07

Note: An asterisk (*) indicates that the state wanted to note that the information could be derived, and (**) indicates some other additional 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

 

 

AL

DAW

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AHSGE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SAT-10

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ARMT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

AK

SBA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

HSGQE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

TerraNova

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

AZ

TerraNova

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AIMS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AIMS HS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AR

ITBS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ABE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

EOC

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CA

CSTs

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CAT-6

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CO

CSAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CT

CMT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CAPT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

DE

DSTP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

FL

FCAT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

FCAT NRT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 

GA

EOCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

GHSGT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CRCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

EGWA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

HI

HSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ID

DMA/DWA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ISAT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

IRI

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

IL

ISAT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

PSAE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

IN

ISTEP+

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ECA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

GQE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

IA

ITBS/ITED **Also reports enrolled

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

KS

KAS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

KY

Plan (10th )

(Explore test to be added 07-08)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

KCCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

LA

GEE 21

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

LEAP 21

*8th grade only

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

iLEAP *4-7

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ME

MEA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

MHSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

MD

MSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

HSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

MA

MCAS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

MI

MEAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

MN

MCAs

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

BST

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

GRAD

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

MS

MCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Writing

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SATP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

MO

MAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

MT

ITBS/ITED

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Montana CRT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NE

NSWA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

STARS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NV

ITBS/ITED

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NCRT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

HSPE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NAWE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NH

NECAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NJ

NJ-ASK

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

GEPA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

HSPA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NM

NMSBA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NMHSCE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NY

RCE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

RCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NYSAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NC

EOG

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

EOC

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Computer Skills

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ND

NDSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

OH

OAT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

OGT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

OK

OCCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

EOI

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

OR

OSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

PA

PSSA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

RI

NECAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NSRE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

DRA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SC

PACT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

HSAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

SD

STEP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Stanford Writing

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

TN

TCAP-AT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

TCAP-Gateways

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

TX

TAKS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

EoC Algebra I

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

UT

ITBS/ITED

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

CCRT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

DWA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

UBSCT

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

ROGL

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

VT

NSRE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

DRA

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

NECAP

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

VA

SOL

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

WA

WASL

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

WV

WESTEST

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

WI

WKCE

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

WY

PAWS

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

 


Appendix G

Disaggregated Alternate Assessment Participation Information for ELLs with Disabilities on Regular State Assessments for the Fifty States and Unique States for 2006-07

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

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) *Has % tested and % in group

Y*

N

N

N

N

N

N

Alaska

Alternate Assessment (AAS)

*with enrolled

N

N

N

Y*

N

N

N

 

Arizona

AIMS-Alternate (AAS) (AIMS-A)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

AIMS-A HS (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Arkansas

Alternate Portfolio

Assessment System (APAS) (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

California

California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) (AAS)

N

Y

N

N

N

N

N

 

Colorado

Colorado Student

Assessment Program Alternate (CSAPA) (AAS) * Percent no scores.

N

Y

N

N

N

Y*

N

Connecticut

Alternate Assessment (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Delaware

Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment (DAPA) (AAS) *with enrolled

N

Y*

N

N

N

Y

N

Florida

Florida Alternate Assessment Report (FAAR) (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Georgia

Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA) (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Hawaii

Alternate Assessment (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Idaho

Idaho Alternate Assessment (IAA) (AAS) *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) (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Iowa

Alternate Assessment (AAS)

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

Kansas

Alternate Assess