On the Road to Accountability: Reporting Outcomes for Students with Disabilities

NCEO Technical Report 32

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by:

John Bielinski, Martha Thurlow, Stacy Callender, and Sara Bolt

December 2001


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

Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., Callender, S., & Bolt., S. (2001). On the road to accountability: Reporting outcomes for students with disabilities (TechnicalReport 32). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical32.htm


Executive Summary

This report is the fourth review of state education reports conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) to determine the public availability of important student outcome information on students with disabilities. In this report, we include a description of the assessment systems used in each state in the 1999-2000 school year, and whether the state publicly reported participation and performance results for students with disabilities on each test. We also examined the participation data that were available, as well as the performance gap between students with disabilities and the total population.

For this report, as with previous reports, we requested all of the publicly available reports produced by state departments of education that contain student outcome data such as achievement test performance. We also examined test results that states reported on their Web sites.   We found that 35 states reported 1999-2000 test results for students with disabilities on at least some of their state assessments. This is up from only 17 states the year before, a year in which our analysis examined 1998-99 data, or data from earlier years if 1998-99 data were not available.

Only 16 states reported participation and performance results for students with disabilities on all of their 1999-2000 tests.  Another 15 states reported participation and performance data for  some of their 1999-2000 tests.  Most of the states that reported disaggregated performance results also reported disaggregated participation results, but not all did.  Out of 64 tests in which disaggregated performance results were reported, only 7 tests did not have participation data also. 

States reported participation data in a variety of ways.  Most states reported the number of students with disabilities who were tested; only nine states reported participation rates, and four other states reported enough information to make it possible for the reader to calculate the participation rate. Our analysis of the performance data reported by states clearly showed the achievement gap between special education students and other students.   This gap is fairly consistent across states, and also increases with higher grade levels. 

Despite dramatic increases in the number of states reporting disaggregated data on students with disabilities for the 1999-2000 school year, reporting is still considerably less frequent than might be expected. Further, some of the data are easier to find and understand.  The following recommendations for reporting are derived from our experiences in attempting to find and analyze state data for students with disabilities:

  • Provide data reports that meet minimum reporting requirements to the public in a timely manner – no more than 6 months after a test was administered.
  • Establish clear guidelines for reporting practices consistent with IDEA 97.
  • Report participation rates based on the percent of students enrolled on the day of testing.
  • Regardless of how participation is reported, be sure to include in the data tables a brief description of who is included in the participation index (e.g., if the state reports the total number of all students eligible, then tell the readers who was not eligible.
  • Report the number and percent of students with disabilities using accommodations.
  • Report disaggregated results for all reporting categories required by Title I in the same data table.

Overview

Reform efforts during the past decade emphasize the importance of accountability for the outcomes of all students, including those with disabilities. To promote accountability for all students, states are required by both Title I and IDEA to report disaggregated results for students with disabilities. Whenever students with disabilities are excluded from assessment results, we obtain an inaccurate picture of how all students are performing (Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Erickson, & Elliott, 1997). It is important to document the extent to which states are making assessment results public and the degree to which students with disabilities are included. And, as more states publicly report data, it is important to examine the extent to which students with disabilities are being included in assessments (participation) and the performance of students with disabilities, as well as to study the achievement gap between students with disabilities and the total population.

On an annual basis since 1997, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has reviewed state reporting practices, specifically looking at what states are reporting on the performance and participation of students with disabilities in statewide large-scale assessments. These reviews have shown slow movement toward public reporting on the participation of students in assessments and on their performance (Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Shin & Coleman, 1998; Thurlow, Nelson, Teelucksingh, & Ysseldyke, 2000; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Teelucksingh & Seyfarth, 1998).

For some time, states have provided little, if any, explicit information on students with disabilities. In our first study on state 1997 reporting practices (Thurlow, Langenfeld et al., 1998), we examined 113 accountability reports collected between Fall 1995 and Spring 1997 and found that only 11 states included disaggregated performance data on students with disabilities. Of the 92 reports that did not contain performance data for students with disabilities, 76 (82.6%) did contain performance data for students without disabilities. It was more common to find enrollment data (N=30) than outcome data for students with disabilities in these reports. Since most states did not specify who was in their summary results, it was difficult to determine whether students with disabilities were included in whole, in part, or entirely excluded. Based on these findings, NCEO provided recommendations about ways to improve state reporting practices (e.g., performance data on students with disabilities should be publicly reported as often as data on regular education students).

In the second examination of state reporting practices in 1998 (Ysseldyke et al., 1998), NCEO again found few states that provided information on students with disabilities. Also little change was found in the type of information that was included in reports. Only a few states (N=13) included disaggregated performance data on students with disabilities and even fewer (N=11) provided disaggregated participation data in statewide assessments for students with disabilities. However, enrollment data on students with disabilities remained available for the majority of states (N=38); often, data on time spent in various settings were also reported. As before, many of the reports that did not contain data on students with disabilities did contain performance data on students without disabilities (39 out of 56 reports, 69.6%).

Our summary of the performance data contained in the 115 reports (Ysseldyke et al., 1998) revealed lower performance for students with disabilities compared to other students, and lower rates of participation (e.g., 50-80%). For example, on state reading assessments, 30% to 50% fewer students with disabilities met the state standard (or passed) when compared to students without disabilities. Further analysis and interpretation of these results, such as making comparisons among states, were limited because 37 states did not report performance data and those states that did had low participation rates for students with disabilities.

In the third examination of state reporting practices during 1998-99 (Thurlow et al., 2000), NCEO anticipated dramatic changes in reporting practices because the IDEA 97 requirements for reporting were in place. Yet again, few states (N=17) included disaggregated performance data on students with disabilities or provided disaggregated participation data for students with disabilities (N=14) in statewide assessments. Over 50 out of 74 (67.6%) reports that contained outcome data on students without disabilities still did not contain data on students with disabilities. Further analysis of the data contained in the 165 reports that were reviewed again revealed lower performance for students with disabilities compared to other students and vastly different participation rates for students with disabilities ranging from 33% - 97% across states.

Despite the difficulties in interpreting the outcome data provided for students with disabilities in the past, it is important to continue examining how these students participate and perform in statewide assessments (Thurlow et al., 1997). The lack of publicly available information on students with disabilities is particularly troubling in light of the findings from a survey of state assessment directors in which all but five state directors indicated that their state disaggregated data on students with disabilities (Thompson & Thurlow, 1999). These findings beg the question: Where are the data that states say are disaggregated? If the data are available, why are they not readily available to the public?

 

Current Study of State Reports – Looking for 1999-2000 Data

The purpose of this fourth study of state reports was to continue to track state reporting practices on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in statewide assessments. Our intention was to document reporting practices on performance and participation for each state assessment. In addition, we summarized reading and math test results for students with and without disabilities. Our approach for this report differs from that in our previous reports in that the unit of analysis for this report is the state assessments, whereas the unit of analysis in our previous reports was all publicly available print reports.

 


Study Procedures

The procedures used in this analysis of state reports differed slightly from those used in previous years. The refinements in procedure emerged from our previous experiences, as well as from advances in reporting practices in the states (e.g., greater use of Web sites). Each year since our first report, an increasing number of states has reported test results on the World Wide Web. In some cases, the data available on the Web sites are more comprehensive than the data available in print documents. Sometimes print reports lag one or more years behind the results available on the state’s Web site, and in other cases the state has discontinued detailed reporting of test results in printed reports. For these reasons, and the relative ease with which results can be accessed from the Web, we chose in this year’s analysis to concentrate our efforts on Web-based reporting. However, we also requested from the state assessment director in each state, a copy of all of the publicly available reports that presented test results.

In contrast to previous years in which we collected the most recent data available in each state, regardless of the year of the data, this time we focused on a single year’s assessments – those from 1999-2000. For example, for our analysis of reports publicly available between September, 1999 and June, 2000, there were 4 states in which data from 1996-97 testing were the most recent, 41 states with 1997-98 data, and only 5 states with what might be considered “current” 1998-99 data. By changing our data collection criteria to a specific year instead of the most recent year, we are looking at data from tests administered during the same academic year. The possible limitation of this approach is that data will not be reflected for those states that report data more than a year after the test is administered. We believe, however, that it is reasonable to expect that disaggregated results, if the state reports them, should be available within a year of testing.

A form letter was sent in August, 2000 to each state assessment director requesting publicly available reports of test results for the 1999-2000 academic year. Follow-up phone calls and e-mails were made throughout the fall, until December, 2000. In January, 2001, a final follow-up letter was sent to those states that had not responded to our inquiries. Overall, 17 states did not respond to any of our inquiries; these included states for which we had found data on Web sites. Another letter was sent to every state assessment director in February to verify whether the information we had from the Web and print documents was accurate in reflecting the statewide assessment program. We did this by asking assessment directors to examine a table that included the names of their assessments, the grades and content areas tested, and the availability of disaggregated results for students with disabilities (see example in Appendix A). The letter contained a deadline of March 30th for responding. All of the data presented in this report went through this verification process with state assessment directors, although only a fraction of the assessment directors responded to the verification information.

Another change in our methodology for this report was that each state assessment, not print reports, was treated as the unit of analysis. Our goal was to determine whether participation and performance results were available for each test at each grade tested. In the past, we focused on determining whether each report that had test data also had disaggregated data for students with disabilities. A shortcoming of the approach we used previously was that we could never be sure that we had received all reports from a state. The accuracy and thoroughness of those data depended solely on what the state assessment director provided and what we could find. Ensuring thoroughness and accuracy of the data we obtained from assessment directors was very time consuming and expensive.

With state assessments as the unit of analysis, we were able to avoid some of these pitfalls. Every state department of education includes some information about their assessments on the Web. We were able to access this information to determine which assessments were used and in which grades students were tested. Through our verification process (described above), we were able to determine for which assessments the state provided to the public participation and performance results for students with disabilities.

 

Defining Statewide Assessment Programs

Most state assessment programs are comprised of more than a single test. Different assessments are used for different purposes. For instance, a state may use an off-the-shelf nationally standardized test so that performance can be compared to national norms, and a state-developed test to measure the state’s content standards. Many states include a high stakes test that students must “pass” in order to earn a diploma. In this report, we include only tests that are mandated by state policy. Excluded from this list are tests that are given by a state on a volunteer basis, such as NAEP, and college entrance exams.

We used several criteria to distinguish between tests, such as the name of the test, the type of test, and the purpose of the test. In most instances, we could distinguish one test from another based on the name of the test. For instance, Florida has two tests, one called the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) and another called the High School Competency Test (HSCT). In other instances, we had to turn to the purpose of the test. For example, we treated Arizona’s testing system as being comprised of three tests: the Stanford Achievement Test given in grades 5, 7, and 10, the Arizona Instrument to Measure Scores (AIMS) given in grades 3, 5, and 8, and the AIMS given in 10th grade, even though two of them used the same name (AIMS). The 10th grade AIMS is a high stakes test that students must pass to earn a diploma, a purpose that separated it from the AIMS in grades 3, 5, and 8. In a few instances, we treated state writing exams as separate tests when there did not appear to be a link between the writing test and other tests. For instance, Mississippi uses the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS/5) for students in grades 3 through 8, and Mississippi gives a writing test in grades 4 and 7. Although the writing test is part of their Grade-Level-Testing-Program, it is not treated as part of their norm-referenced testing program.

Despite our criteria, results were not always clear. For instance, Mississippi has two writing assessments, one that is part of the Functional Literacy Exam (FLE) and is given in 11th grade, and another (without a specific name) that is administered in both 4th and 7th grades. Students must pass the writing test in 11th grade in order to earn a diploma, but this is not true for the writing tests administered in 4th and 7th grade. In this instance, we treated the writing assessments given in 4th and 7th grades as one assessment, and the FLE exams as another.

Most statewide assessment programs are multi-component systems in which several content domains in several different grades are assessed. For instance, Colorado’s Student Assessment Program (CSAP) tests students in grades 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 in four subject areas: reading, math, writing, and science. There were instances in which the components had different names, but appeared to be part of a single assessment system (i.e., serving the same purpose). For instance, New Jersey has a test called the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA), and another called the Elementary School Proficiency Assessment (ESPA). Both systems assess in three content areas—language arts, math, and science – and report performance in the same manner. Because we could not identify a distinctly different purpose, we treated the GEPA and ESPA as multiple components of the same assessment system.

 

Data Collection

Beginning in October 2000, state department of education Web sites were accessed using the Achieve Web site (http://www.achieve.org) “State Links” page as a quick link to several state departments and state offices including accountability and assessment Web sites. Both participation and performance data on required statewide assessments were collected. In addition, other outcome data, including attendance rates, drop out rates, and graduation rates were examined. These data were classified as being available for all students, regular education only, special education only, or not specified at the state and district/school level. Most of the reviews of state Web sites were completed by December, 2000. The information gathered was summarized and submitted to the state director of assessment for verification. Additional information gathered in the review of print reports sent to NCEO was included in these verification tables. A final review of the states’ Web sites and print documents was conducted in March-April 2001 to ensure that the states had sufficient time to report and submit their 1999-2000 data.

 


Characteristics of State Assessment Systems

Appendix B is a list of all of the state mandated assessments we were able to identify for all 50 states. The list includes the state, the name of the test, the grades and subject areas tested, and whether the state had publicly available disaggregated participation and performance results for students with disabilities. We identified 105 separate statewide assessments. Thirty-three states had more than one assessment, and only Iowa and Nebraska did not have a state mandated assessment program.

Figure 1 breaks down the 105 testing systems by type: norm-referenced tests (NRT), criterion-referenced tests (CRT), tests used as a gate for graduation or earning a particular type of diploma (DIPLOMA), and tests that combined standardized NRTs with additional items used to generate state criterion-referenced (or benchmark) scores (NRT/CRT). One half (N=53) of the 105 assessments were CRTs, 23 were DIPLOMA tests, 24 were off-the-shelf NRTs, and 5 were a combination NRT/CRT. Although there were 23 tests designated as DIPLOMA tests, there were only 21 states with this type of test because New York had three tests during 1999-2000 intended for different populations that were used for graduation/diploma decisions. In New York, students could take the Regents Comprehensive Exam, the Regents Competency Test, or the Career Education Proficiency Exams.

 

Figure 1. Type of State Assessments

 Type of state assessments


Which States Disaggregated 1999-2000 Data for Students with Disabilities?

Figure 2 is a map of the United States. This figure indicates which states: (a) reported participation and performance for all of their state tests (solid black); (b) reported performance results on all tests, but not participation (diagonal lines); (c) reported performance and participation for some of their tests (light gray); (d) reported performance results for some of their tests, but not participation (dotted); and (e) did not report participation or performance results for any of their assessment systems (states in white). States that reported disaggregated data for students with disabilities usually reported results at the state level and often at the district level too.

Figure 2. States that Report 1999-2000 Disaggregated Results for Students with Disabilities

States that report 1999-2000 disaggregated results for students with disabilities

(See Appendix B for a complete list of states that report 1999-2000 disaggregated results for students with disabilities.)

Sixteen states reported test participation and performance results for students with disabilities on all of their tests. As evident in Figure 2, there is no geographic pattern to these states. They are located at both coasts, in the middle, in the north, and in the south. They are states with large populations of students, and states with small populations. The states that are reporting on the participation and performance of their students with disabilities do so regardless of whether they have one or multiple assessments (10 of the 16 states had more than one assessment), and regardless of whether they test in just a few grades or in as many as 10 grades.

Fifteen states reported participation and performance results on some, but not all of their tests. In most instances, these states did not have participation results or performance results on at least one of their tests. Four states had disaggregated participation and performance data on most of their tests. Three of these states, Maryland, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, were missing only disaggregated participation data on one test. The other state, North Carolina, has nine assessments, and only one, the Competency Exam, was missing disaggregated results. Two other states (New Mexico, North Dakota) reported the performance of students with disabilities on all of their tests, but did not report participation.

It is evident from the data that while many states present some disaggregated data on students with disabilities, data often are not reported for all of the state assessments. Looking at reporting as a function of the total possible testing programs for which data could be reported presents a slightly different picture. The pie chart in Figure 3 shows the number of all of the 105 assessments for which performance, performance and participation, or neither were reported for students with disabilities. For none of the state systems did states report only assessment participation data. For 57 of the 105 tests (54.3%), states reported both student participation and performance, and for seven tests (6.7%), states reported only performance. For almost half of the tests (N=41), neither participation nor performance results were publicly reported.

Figure 3. State Assessments that Disaggregate Results for Students with Disabilities

 State assessments that disaggregate results for students with disabilities

 


Going Beyond Reporting Requirements

Several states report results beyond what might be considered minimal requirements. Some states are reporting trends, others are reporting test score gains from one grade cohort to the next, and some states are reporting results by disability category or accommodation category. Here we summarize the results of a few of the states that have gone beyond minimum reporting requirements. This summary is not meant to be exhaustive; rather we intend to highlight particular practices.

The South Carolina Department of Education posts test scores across two years in one of its Web based reports. That report includes the percent of students passing the state’s High School Exit Examination for a variety of groups, including students with disabilities, in two years—1999 and 2000. The table also includes the change in the percent passing from 1999 to 2000. These kinds of data, reported in a single table, make it easy to compare gains in passing rates across various groups of students (e.g., general education and special education). The Utah Department of Education includes a similar table displaying two years of results for students taking the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition. That report includes the change in Median Percentile Ranks from 1999 to 2000 for students in special education.

Some states report results by disability category. North Carolina reports participation and performance results for students taking the Third Grade Pretest and Computer Skills Test for the 13 federal disability categories. Colorado also reports performance and participation by disability category. Colorado’s results are reported alongside the results for other student groups, which makes it easy for the reader to make comparisons. Colorado also reports results for several accommodations categories, including Braille, large-print version, teacher-read directions, scribe, and extended/modified timing. Reporting results in this way allows the reader to easily recognize what accommodations students are using and how frequently they are using those accommodations.

The Texas Department of Education produces a print report that provides results for students with disabilities using the same reporting categories that are used for the general education students. These reporting categories include all of the Title I reporting categories, namely, gender, ethnicity, economic disadvantage, Title I, migrant, and limited English proficient, along with some additional categories, namely bilingual, ESL, gifted/talented, at-risk, and career/technology education. In this way, Texas reports results in the same way for students in special education as it does for students in general education.

New York produces a report called the “Pocketbook.” This pocket-sized report gives results for students with disabilities on a variety of outcome indicators, including earning a high school diploma, dropout, test results, and participation in post-secondary education. For some of the tests, the report includes figures that display trends across three years of test scores.

 


Participation Results

Among the 31 states identified as reporting disaggregated participation data for students with disabilities, participation data were reported using a variety of approaches. Many states reported a count of the number of students with disabilities or special education students tested. Others reported the percentage of all enrolled students with disabilities who were tested. Still others reported participation information as the number or percent of students with disabilities excluded, exempted, or absent. Figure 4 illustrates the number of states reporting disaggregated participation information in particular ways.

Figure 4. Participation Reporting Approaches

 Figure 4. Participation Reporting Approaches

Some states disaggregated participation information according to disability category (Colorado, North Carolina), and accommodated conditions (Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Rhode Island). Most states provided participation according to grade and content area tested. Further information on approaches used to report participation for students with disabilities on state assessment systems is provided in Appendix C.

Figure 5 represents the reported participation rates for several states that clearly identified the percent of students with disabilities tested. It may have been possible to calculate participation rates for other states as well, given the information that was reported. However, due to the different terms used by states and the lack of a clear description of who was represented in the participation results, it was difficult to ascertain who was included or excluded under various headings. For instance, Washington reports the percent of students in special education “exempt” as well as the percent of students in special education “not tested.” Other states only report a single exclusion rate such as the percent of students with disabilities “excluded,” “exempted,” or “not tested.” It is possible that these terms have different meanings in different states.

Figure 5. Percent of Students with Disabilities Tested1 among States Reporting this Information

 Figure 5. Percent of Students with Disabilities Tested among States Reporting this Information

For most states, participation in the middle school/junior high school age math test was used. For WV, participation rates represent those reported for all students (grades 3-11), and for LA they represent rates reported for all 8th grade students.

Figure 5 represents the reported participation rates for several states that clearly identified the percent of students with disabilities tested. It may have been possible to calculate participation rates for other states as well, given the information that was reported. However, due to the different terms used by states and the lack of a clear description of who was represented in the participation results, it was difficult to ascertain who was included or excluded under various headings. For instance, Washington reports the percent of students in special education “exempt” as well as the percent of students in special education “not tested.” Other states only report a single exclusion rate such as the percent of students with disabilities “excluded,” “exempted,” or “not tested.” It is possible that these terms have different meanings in different states.


Performance Results

In addition to documenting the extent to which states are reporting the participation and performance of students with disabilities, we examined the performance of students with disabilities participating in statewide assessments. It is important to remember that the scores from each state are based on different tests; these tests may emphasize different standards and are likely to differ in difficulty. In addition, there is great variability across states in terms of the percentages of students with disabilities who are included in the assessments. Thus, it is not appropriate to compare performance across states.Despite these caveats, it is important to examine the performance of students with disabilities relative to the performance of all students within each state.

As indicated in Appendix B, there is a tremendous amount of data available in some states; the results summarized here represent only a sample of these publicly available results. Our purpose here is to provide a snapshot of the results. Results are summarized in reading and mathematics because these content domains are the ones assessed by most states. We also separate results by type of test (NRT, CRT), grade level (elementary, middle school, high school), and purpose of test (graduation exam, school accountability measure). Although it is not always clear how the results are used by the state, the name of the test usually indicates which tests are graduation exams; all other tests were treated as school accountability tests. We present results by three school levels: elementary (grades 3-5), middle (grades 6-8), and high school (grades 9-12). For our summary, we chose to present only one grade for each level. Whenever possible, 4th grade was used to represent the elementary level, 8th grade to represent the middle school level, and 10th grade to represent the high school level. These grades were chosen because they are the grades at which the greatest number of states test students.

 

Norm-Referenced Reading Tests

Figures 6-8 illustrate the average national percentile ranks for students with disabilities (SWD) and for all students in those states that reported results for a commercially developed off-the-shelf reading test. Drop-lines depict the size of the achievement gap between all students in a grade and students with disabilities.

Figure 6 shows that as a group, students with disabilities in elementary school performed below the 50th percentile, generally falling between the 25th and 30th percentile. This contrasts with the total population of students in the same grade in each state, which typically performed above the 50th percentile. The achievement gap was similar across states, varying between 20 and 30 percentile points. The figure shows that the higher the average performance of the overall population, the higher the performance of students with disabilities.

Figure 6. Elementary School Reading Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

Figure 6. Elementary School Reading Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

Figure 7 presents disaggregated middle school results on norm-referenced reading tests for a sample of states. The performance gap in middle school was generally larger than the gap observed for the elementary school sample. Students with disabilities, on average, scored below the 25th percentile rank, whereas the overall population generally scored above the 50th percentile rank. The increase in the gap seems to be due to a decrease in the performance of the population of students with disabilities.

 

Figure 7. Middle School Reading Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

 wpe97.jpg (13536 bytes)

Figure 8 presents average percentile ranks for high school students on norm-referenced reading tests. There is a large difference in the mean scores of students with disabilities compared to the mean for all students within a state. The mean percentile rank for students with disabilities ranged from 10 to 30, whereas the mean for all students ranged from 37 to 70. The performance gap between these groups of students varied to some degree across states, but in general there appears to be approximately a 35% difference between these groups of students.

 

Figure 8. High School Reading Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

 Figure 8. High School Reading Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

What is evident across the three figures (Figures 6, 7, and 8) is that the average percentile rank of the population of students with disabilities decreased as grade level increased. Furthermore, the decrease among students with disabilities was greater than the corresponding decrease in the total population. For example, in California the mean percentile rank for students with disabilities was about 25, 20, and 10 for elementary, middle school, and high school respectively, whereas the corresponding mean percentile ranks in the overall population were 45, 45, and 40. A similar pattern was observed in prior reports (Thurlow, Ysseldyke, Nelson, & Teelucksingh, 2000; Ysseldyke et al., 1998). Bielinski and Ysseldyke (2000) discussed some possible explanations for this pattern. They suggested that changes in the characteristics of who receives special education services and who is tested can account for much of the increase in the gap. They demonstrated that classification into special education and declassification (i.e., going back into general education) is tied to prior achievement; the lowest achieving general education students are the ones who get classified into special education, whereas the highest achieving special education students are the ones who get declassified. Over time, this results in an increasingly low achieving special education population.

 

Meeting State Proficiency Benchmarks in Reading

Figures 9-11 present the percent of students meeting state proficiency benchmarks (i.e., at or above the proficient level defined by the state) at each of the school levels. As we did for the NRTs, we provide drop lines in these figures to depict the achievement gap. These figures reveal that there is greater variability among states for CRT performance than there was for NRT performance.

Figure 9 shows that the percentage of elementary students with disabilities meeting the requirements ranged from 12% to over 75% across this sample of states. The variability likely reflects variation in the overall difficulty of the tests as well as differences in the percentage of the special education population tested. This conjecture is supported by the fact that those states with higher rates of students with disabilities reaching proficiency also had high rates of all students reaching proficiency; states with low rates of students with disabilities meeting proficiency also had low rates of students in the total population reaching proficiency.

 

Figure 9. Percent of Elementary School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Reading

 Figure 9. Percent of Elementary School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Reading

Results for middle school students on criterion-referenced reading tests demonstrated a similar trend to that for elementary students (see Figure 10). Like the norm-referenced results, the gap between students with disabilities and the total population increased from elementary grades to middle school grades on the criterion-referenced results. In five of the eight states, less than one-fifth of the students with disabilities met the benchmark, compared to only three of ten states in the elementary grades. In this sample of states, there were also smaller performance gaps between all students and students with disabilities when results were at the extremes. For instance, in Texas, many students met the reading proficiency requirements. Many students with disabilities also met the proficiency requirements in this state. Similarly, in Kentucky, where very few students met proficiency requirements, very few students with disabilities met the requirements. In contrast, for states in which about half of the students met proficiency, there were relatively much smaller percentages of students with disabilities demonstrating proficiency.

 

Figure 10. Percent of Middle School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Reading

Figure 10. Percent of Middle School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Reading

Figure 11 presents results from states that disaggregated data on criterion-referenced reading tests (not graduation exams) given to students in grades 10 and 11. There were only a few states with criterion-referenced tests in high school that were not graduation tests. For the high school graduation tests, the performance of students with disabilities was very low. In three of the four states, less than 15% of students with disabilities met the benchmark. Performance for the total population also was quite low.

 

Figure 11. Percent of High School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Reading

 Figure 11. Percent of High School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Reading

 

Norm-Referenced Math Tests

Figures 12-14 represent student performance on norm-referenced math tests. These data are the mean national percentile ranks attained by students with disabilities and all students.

Similar to results for elementary students on norm-referenced reading tests, students with disabilities received percentile rank scores approximately 25 percentile points below the average of all students in that grade in the state (see Figure 12). Average scores for all elementary students ranged from the 47th to the 68th percentile, whereas average scores for students with disabilities ranged from the 18th to 38th percentile.

 

Figure 12. Elementary School Math Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

Figure 12. Elementary School Math Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

As was the case for norm-referenced reading test results, norm-referenced math test results demonstrated greater performance deficits for students with disabilities in higher grade levels (see Figures 13 and 14). Average middle school and high school students with disabilities scored approximately 35% below the population mean on norm-referenced math tests in most states. At both of these levels, students with disabilities scored near the 25th percentile.

 

 Figure 13. Middle School Math Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

Figure 13. Middle School Math Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

 

Figure 14. High School Math Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

Figure 14. High School Math Performance on Norm-Referenced Tests

Meeting State Proficiency Benchmarks in Math

Figures 15-17 present the percentages of students meeting state proficiency benchmarks (i.e., at or above the proficient level defined by the state). At each level, the percentage of students meeting proficiency varied greatly from state to state. The performance gaps also differed greatly among states. In some states, the percentage of all students meeting proficiency is similar to the percentage of students with disabilities meeting proficiency. In other states, there appears to be a large difference between these groups.

For elementary school results (see Figure 15), the percentage of all students meeting proficiency ranged from 11% to 87%. The percentage of students with disabilities meeting proficiency requirements ranged from 2% to 77%.

 

Figure 15. Percent of Elementary School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Math

 Figure 15. Percent of Elementary School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Math

Beyond elementary school, only a small fraction of students with disabilities met proficiency in any state, with the exception of middle school students in Texas (see Figures 16 and 17). In seven out of the eight states displayed in Figure 17, less than 10% of the students with disabilities met the state proficiency benchmark. Performance for the total population was not much better, with only one state having more than 50% of the students meeting the proficiency benchmark. Again, it is important to note that the difficulty of the content may vary substantially from state to state.

 

Figure 16. Percent of Middle School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmarks in Math

Figure 16. Percent of Middle School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmarks in Math

Figure 17. Percent of High School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Math

 Figure 17. Percent of High School Students at or Above State Proficiency Benchmark in Math

High School Exit Exam Results

Figures 18 and 19 display the results of high school reading and math exit exams. States administer exit exams in different grades; the number in the parentheses next to the state’s name indicates the grade from which the data come. Only those states that report results for students with disabilities are represented in the figures.

 

Figure 18. Percent Passing Minimum Competency/High School Reading Exit Exam

Figure 18. Percent Passing Minimum Competency/High School Reading Exit Exam

Figure 19. Percent Passing Minimum Competency/High School Math Exit Exam

Figure 19. Percent Passing Minimum Competency/High School Math Exit Exam

As was the case with other criterion-referenced test results, there is considerable variability among states in terms of the percentages of all students (72% to 99%) and students with disabilities (35% to 97%) meeting the proficiency requirements. In general, it appears that when high percentages of all students are meeting competency requirements, high percentages of students with disabilities are also meeting these requirements (especially as is depicted in Maryland). However, there is wide variability across states in terms of gaps in competency rates between all students and students with disabilities.

 


Discussion

Each year since 1997, the number of states reporting test results either through public reports or via the Web has increased. In 1997, only 11 states reported results, quite a contrast to the 35 states that reported 1999-2000 results on at least some of their state assessments. Although this is a promising trend, it is clear that several states still are not publicly reporting disaggregated results for students with disabilities for all of their tests. Only 16 states reported disaggregated results on students with disabilities for each test and each grade level for which test results were reported.

There are many reasons why this public reporting is important. For example, doing so raises public awareness about the need for resources directed toward improved achievement. It is evident that for students with disabilities as a group, the achievement gap exists; being forthright about that gap and ways to reduce it keeps the discussion about what should be done in the public consciousness.

 

Challenges

Identification of all state assessment programs is not an easy task. The programs listed in Appendix B for the 1999-2000 school year are all that we could identify through our Web search and follow-up process of state verification. Some of the difficulty can be attributed to the sheer variety of assessment programs in the U.S. Many states have more than one assessment, and several have a handful of different assessments. While variety in assessments achieves several beneficial purposes, it also complicates secondary analyses of state data.

Our decision to focus this year’s analyses on data from a single test year—1999-2000—probably resulted in some states being identified as not having data simply because the data that they had was for years before the 1999-2000 year. In our previous studies that examined print reports, most of the reports were based on results that were more than one year prior to the report. In the report prior to this one (Thurlow et al., 2000) only five states had results from the most recent academic year. Timely reporting of results seems to us to be a minimum reporting requirement.

Web-based reporting is an important technology-based advance that should make state achievement test data more accessible more quickly. Attempting to cull test results from publicly available print reports, as we did in the past, is costly in many ways, for the states that must design, print, and ship the reports, and to us in terms of staff time simply to obtain the reports, as well as to search through them. In fact, most states have replaced expensive paper reporting of test results with Web-based reporting, and several have expressed a long-range plan to eliminate print reports and to rely solely on Web-based reporting.

State departments of education often have an easily identifiable link to their results on the home page of their Web sites. Words such as “Results,” “Tests/Assessments,” and “Student Data” are some of the labels that states use to link to their test results. Unfortunately, many states did not have such easily identifiable links. Sometimes we had to search through many layers just to determine whether the state had results. In addition, data sometimes changed or disappeared very rapidly. It seems reasonable to expect all state departments of education to provide a link from their home page to their test results, and to provide dates and clear information about changes in data on their Web sites. In our next analysis of state reports, we will take a closer look at Web-based reporting of test results; features such as accessibility, readability, and usability will be described.

The way in which participation is reported needs to be revisited. Simply reporting the number of students participating in a test is not enough. This approach misses the main reason why we believe publicly acknowledging participation is so important. Knowing how many students took the test is far less informative than knowing the percentage of students with disabilities enrolled who took the test. The question on most people’s mind is not how many, but what percent. While there are many acknowledged challenges in creating comparable participation rates (Erickson, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1996), people need to know whether a fraction of students with disabilities enrolled, or most of the students with disabilities enrolled, took the test. If these data were made available, the public would be in a better position to evaluate the merits of the results in terms of their representation of students with disabilities.

Performance data available in the 35 states also indicate additional challenges that need to be addressed in reporting on the performance of students with disabilities. For simplification here, we examined either the average national percentile rank (for norm-referenced tests) or the percentage of students reaching a state-defined level of proficiency (for criterion-referenced tests). States actually report data in many more ways than this. For example, South Carolina and New York report the annual change in the percent of students passing their tests. Some states report on changes in performance across grades for the same students. Several other states provide figures and tables of their results across years, but many of those states do not disaggregate trend data for students with disabilities.

 

Recommendations for Reporting

Our analyses and experiences in looking for disaggregated data on students with disabilities have led us to identify several characteristics of what we consider to be better reports. Based on these, we make the following recommendations for reporting on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in state tests:

  • Provide data reports that meet minimum reporting requirements to the public in a timely manner – no more than 6 months after a test was administered.
  • Establish clear guidelines for reporting practices consistent with IDEA 97.
  • Report participation rates based on the percent of students enrolled on the day of testing.
  • Regardless of how participation is reported, be sure to include in the data tables a brief description of who is included in the participation index (e.g., if the state reports the total number of all students eligible, then tell the readers who was not eligible.
  • Report the number and percent of students with disabilities using accommodations.
  • Report disaggregated results for all reporting categories required by Title I in the same data table.

References

Bielinski, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). Interpreting trends in the performance of special education students (Technical Report 27). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.

Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (1999). 1999 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the end of the century. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

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

Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K.L., Nelson, J.R., Shin, H., & Coleman, J.E. (1998). State accountability reports: What are states saying about students with disabilities? (Technical Report 20). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2000). Where’s Waldo? A third search for students with disabilities in state accountability reports (Technical Report 25). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., Erickson, R.N., & Elliott, J.L. (1997). Increasing the participation of students with disabilities in state and district assessments (Policy Directions No. 6). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K., Nelson, J.R., Teelucksingh, E., & Seyfarth, A. (1998). Educational results for students with disabilities: What do the data tell us? (Technical Report 23). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.


Appendix A
Sample Verification Table

Results on Students with Disabilities

The National Center on Educational Outcomes will be writing a report using this information.  The report will describe how states are reporting test results for students with disabilities.  Our goal is to (a) identify all components of each state’s testing system, and (b) determine whether each state reports disaggregated test results for students with disabilities.     

PLEASE VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF THIS TABLE:

  • If any information is inaccurate, provide us with the HARD COPY REPORT containing the data and/or the WEB ADDRESS containing the data.
  • If the department of education produces any other report on educational results not included in the list below, please send us the report(s). 
  • If ALL of the information is accurate, please send an email verifying that the information is accurate.  Email:  John Bielinski at bieli001@umn.edu 

Alabama

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Participation

Performance

Direct Assessment of Writing

5,7

Writing

No

No

High School Graduation Exam

10,11

Reading, Language, Math (10), Science (10)

No

No

Stanford Achievement Test, 9

3-11

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

 

List of Public Reports

Hard Copy

  • None

Web Sites

  • http://www.alsde.edu/standards00/ChartA.jpg (state chart)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/standards00/ChartB.jpg (state chart)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/standards00/ChartC.jpg (state chart)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/ver1/reports.asp?cat=2 (starting point for results for state & district)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/AllReportCards/syssch_reportcards/0000000.pdf (state data)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/AllReportCards/syssch_reportcards/1069999.pdf (sample district data)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/ver1/2000HSGrad.asp?systemcode=999&schoolcode=9999 (state data)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/ver1/2000HSGrad.asp?systemcode=106&schoolcode=0000 (sample district data)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/ver1/2000SAT.asp?systemcode=000&schoolcode=0000 (state data)

  • http://www.alsde.edu/ver1/2000SAT.asp?systemcode=106&schoolcode=0000 (sample district)


Appendix B
1999-2000 State Assessment Systems and Status of Disaggregated Data

 

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Part

Perf

Alabama

Direct Assessment of Writing [CRT]

5,7

Writing

No

No

High School Graduation Exam

[DIPLOMA]

10,11

Reading, Language, Math (10), Science (10)

No

No

Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT]

3-11

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

No

Alaska

California Achievement Test, 5th ed. (CAT-5) [NRT]

4,7

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

Benchmark Exams [CRT]

3,6,8

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

High School Graduation Qualifying Exam [DIPLOMA]

Class of 2002 must pass portions of exam to receive an endorsement on diploma

10

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

Arizona

Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT]

2-11

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

AZ Instrument to Measure Scores (AIMS) [CRT]

3,5,8

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

AIMS [DIPLOMA]

10

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

Arkansas

Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT]

5,7,10

Complete Battery

No

No

Benchmark Exams [CRT]

4,6,8

Literacy [Reading & Writing] & Math

No

No

California

Standardized Testing And Reporting Program (STAR) SAT-9 [NRT]

2-11

Reading, Language, Math, Spelling

(2-8),

Science (9-11), Social Science (9-11)

Yes

Yes

Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE/2)

Spanish version of STAR [NRT]

2-11

Reading, Language, Math, Spelling

(2-8)

Yes

Yes

Content Standard [CRT]

2-11

English/Language Arts, Math (2-7,11) [Algebra I, II; Geometry; Integrated 1,2,3 for 8-10]

Yes

Yes

Colorado

CO Student Assessment Program (CSAP) [CRT]

3,4,5,7,8

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

Yes

Yes

Connecticut

CT Mastery Test (CMT) [DIPLOMA]

4,6,8

Math, Writing, Reading

Yes

Yes

CT Academic Performance Test (CAPT) [CRT]

10

Language Arts, Math, Science, Interdisciplinary

No

No

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Part

Perf

Delaware

DE Student Testing Program (DSTP) [SAT-9 for R,M with other criterion measures; [NRT/CRT]

3-6,8,10,11

Reading (3,5,8,10), Writing (3,5,8,10), Math (3,5,8,10), Science (4,6,8,11), Social Studies (4,6,8,11)

Yes

Yes

 


Florida

FL Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) includes SAT-9

[NRT/CRT]

3-10

Reading (NRT 3-10/CRT 4,8,10), Math (NRT 3-10/CRT 5,8,10),

Writing (CRT 4,8,10)

No

No*

High School Competency Test (HSCT) [DIPLOMA]

(for those not exempted by their FCAT performance in 10th grade )

11

Communications, Math

No

No

Georgia

 

GA High School Graduation Test (GHSGT) [DIPLOMA]

11

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies (Writing)

Yes

Yes

Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) [NRT]

3,5,8

Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests (CRCT) [CRT]

4,6,8

Reading, English/Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

Performance Assessments [CRT]

5,8

Writing

Yes

Yes

Hawaii

Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT]

3,5,7,9

[reported Reading, Math only]

No

No

 

Idaho

 

ID Direct Assessments [CRT]

4,8,11

Math (4,8), Writing (4,8,11)

Yes

Yes

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) [NRT]

 

Tests of Achievement and Proficiency (TAP) [NRT]

3-8

 

 

9-11

Reading, Language, Math, Science (3,5,7), Social Studies (3,5,7) Sources of Information (3,5,7)

Reading, Writing, Math, Science Social Studies

Yes

 

 

Yes

Yes

 

 

Yes

Illinois

IL Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) [CRT]

3,4,5,7,8

Reading (3,5,8), Math (3,5,8), Writing (3,5,8), Science (4,7), Social Studies (4,7)

Yes

Yes

Indiana

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

3,6,8

Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

 

Graduation Qualifying Exam

[DIPLOMA]

10

Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

Iowa

ITBS/ITED

(VOLUNTARY participation)

3-11

Reading, Math, Science (9-11)

----

----

Kansas

KS Assessment System [CRT]

 

3,4,5,7,8,10,11

Reading (3,7,10), Math (4,7,10), Writing (5,8,10), Science (5,8,10), Social Studies (5,8,11)

Yes

Yes

 

 

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Part

Perf

 

Kentucky

Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5) [NRT]

3,6,9

Reading, Language, Math

Yes

Yes

KY Core Content Test [CRT]

4,5,7,8, 10-12

Reading (4,7,10), Math (5,8,11), Writing (4,7,12), Science (4,7,11), Social Studies (5,8,11), Arts & Humanities (5,8,11), Practical Living & Vocational Studies (5,8,10)

Yes

Yes


 

Louisiana

Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) [CRT]

2,3

Reading

No

No

Graduation Exit Exam [DIPLOMA]

10,11

Language Arts (10), Math (10), Writing (10), Science (11), Social Studies (11)

No

No

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa Tests of Educational Development  [NRT]

3,5-7,9

Complete Battery (reported)

No*

No*

LA Educational Assessment Program (LEAP 21) [CRT]

4,8

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Maine

Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) [CRT]

4,8,11

Reading, Writing, Health, Science/Technology, Math, Social Studies, Visual & Performing Arts

Yes (Reading, Writing, Math only)

Yes (Reading, Writing, Math only)

Maryland

MD School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) [CRT]

3,5,8

Reading, Writing, Language Usage, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

MD Functional Tests [DIPLOMA]

9,11

Reading, Writing, Math, Citizenship

Yes

Yes

Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5) [NRT]

2,4,6

Reading, Language, Math

No

Yes

Massachusetts

MA Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) [CRT]

4,8,10

English & Language Arts, Math, Science & Technology, History & Social Science

Yes

Yes

Michigan

MI Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) [CRT]

MI High School Test [CRT]

4,5,7,8

 

11

Reading (4,7), Math (4,7), Writing, Science & Social Studies (5,8)

Reading, Math, Writing, Science

No*

 

No

No*

 

No

Minnesota

MN Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) [CRT]

3,5

Reading, Math, Writing (5 only)

No

No

Basic Standards Exam [DIPLOMA]

8,10

Reading (8), Math (8), Writing (10)

No

No

 

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Part

Perf

Mississippi

Terra Nova Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5) [NRT]

3-8

Reading, Language, Math

Yes

Yes

Functional Literacy Exam (FLE) [DIPLOMA]

11

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

Yes

Writing Assessment [CRT]

4,7

Writing

Yes

Yes

Missouri

MO Assessment Program (MAP) (Terra Nova/CTBS and other measures) [NRT/CRT]

3,4,7,8,10, 11

Science (3,7,11), Social Studies (4,8,11), Math (4,8,10), Communication   Arts (3,7,11),

Yes

Yes

Montana

Summary across different district tests including: CTBS, Terra Nova, CAT; ITBS, ITED, TAP; TASK, MAT [NRT]

4,8,11

Reading, Math, Science

No

No


Nebraska

(allow 6 NRTs for use by districts, will report district info to state 00-01)

---

---

---

---



Nevada

Terra Nova Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5) [NRT]

4,8,10

Reading, Language, Math, Science (all 4, 8, 10); Writing (4, 8)

No

No

Graduation Exam [DIPLOMA]

9-12

Reading, Math, Writing

No

No

New Hampshire

NH Educational Improvement and Assessment Program (NHEIAP) [CRT]

3,6,10

English Language Arts, Math, Science (6,10), Social Studies (6,10)

Yes

Yes

New Jersey

High School Proficiency Test (HSPT 11) [DIPLOMA]

11

Reading, Math, Writing

Yes

(1999)

Yes

(1999)

Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment (GEPA) [CRT]

Elementary School Proficiency Assessment (ESPA) [CRT]

8

 

4

Language Arts/Literacy, Math, Science

 

Language Arts/Literacy, Math, Science

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

 

Yes

New Mexico

NM Articulated Assessment Program (NMAAP) (CTBS/5 & other criterion measures) [NRT/CRT]

3-9

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

No

Yes

NM High School Competency Exam [DIPLOMA]

10

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

No

Yes

NM Writing Assessment Program [CRT]

4,6 (8 optional)

Writing

No

Yes

 

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Part

Perf

New York

Career Education Proficiency Exams [DIPLOMA]

9-12

Occupational Education

Yes

Yes

 

Regents Comprehensive Exams [DIPLOMA]

9-12

English, Foreign Languages, Math, History/Social Studies, Science

Yes

Yes

 

Regents Competency Test

[DIPLOMA]

9-12

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

Yes

Yes

 

NY State Assessment Program [CRT]

4,8

English/Language Arts, Math, Science (Gr 4 only)

Yes

Yes

North Carolina

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) [NRT]: representative sample

5,8

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

Testing System Grades 3-8

·          Gr. 3 Pre-test [CRT]

 

3

 

Reading, Math

 

Yes

 

Yes

·          End of Grade [CRT]

3-8

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

·          Writing test [CRT]

4 & 7

Writing

Yes

Yes

·          Open Ended [CRT]

4 & 8

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

·          Computer Skills [CRT]

8

Computer

Yes

Yes

Testing System Grade 9 – 12

·          Competency [DIPLOMA]

 

9

 

Reading, Math

 

No

 

No

 

·          High School Comprehensive Test [CRT]

10

 

Reading, Math

Yes

Yes

·          End of Course [CRT]

9-12

Biology, Chemistry, Economics, English I, Physical Science, Physics, U.S. History, Algebra I, Algebra II, & Geometry

Yes

Yes


North Dakota

 

Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS/5) [NRT]

4,6,8,10

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

No

Yes

Ohio

OH Proficiency Tests [CRT]

4,612

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Citizenship

Yes

Yes

OH Proficiency Test [DIPLOMA]

9

Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Citizenship

Yes

Yes

Oklahoma

Core Curriculum Tests [CRT]

5,8,11

Reading, Math, Writing, Science, History/Constitution/ Government, Geography, OK History, Art

Yes

Yes

(5,8 only)

 

Oregon

OR State Assessment [CRT]

 

Certificate of Mastery for 10th

[DIPLOMA]

3,5,8, 10

 

Reading/Literature, Math, Math Problem Solving (5,8,10), Writing, Science (8,10)

Yes

(Math & Reading)

Yes

(Math & Reading)

Pennsylvania

PA System of School Assessment (PSSA) [CRT]

5,6,8,9,11

Reading (5,8,11), Math (5,8,11), Writing (6,9)

No

No

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Part

Perf

Rhode Island

 

New Standards Reference Examinations [CRT]

RI State Writing Assessment [CRT]

RI Health Education Assess [CRT]

4,8,10

 

3,7,10

5,9

Reading, Math, Writing

 

Writing

Health

No

 

Yes

Yes

Yes

 

Yes

Yes

South Carolina

Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) [CRT]

3-8

English/Language Arts, Math

Yes

Yes

High School Exit Exam [DIPLOMA]

10

Reading, Math, Writing

No

Yes

Cognitive Skills Assessment Battery (CSAB) [CRT]

1

Readiness (specific skills listed on printouts)

Yes

Yes

South Dakota

 

Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT]

 

Stanford Writing Assessment [NRT]

2, 4, 8, 11

 

 

5,9

Reading, Language Arts, Math, Environment (2), Science (4,8,11), Social Studies (4,8,11)

Writing

No

 

 

No

No

 

 

No

Tennessee

TN Comprehensive Assessment (TCAP) (Terra Nova CTBS/5) [NRT]

3-8, 11

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies (3-8), Writing (4, 7, 11)

No

No

TN Competency Test [DIPLOMA]

9-12

Math, Language Arts

No

No

High School Subject Tests [CRT]

9-12

Math (End-of-Course in Algebra I, II, Geometry., Tech I)

No

No

Texas

TX Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) [CRT]

3-8

 

Reading, Math, Writing Science, Social Studies; Spanish version for 3-6

Yes

Yes

Exit Level TAAS [DIPLOMA]

10-12

 

Yes

Yes

Statewide End-of-Course Tests [CRT]

9-12

Algebra I, English II, US History, Biology

Yes

Yes

Reading Proficiency Tests in English [CRT]

3-12

English Reading Proficiency

Yes

Yes


Utah

Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT]

5,8,11

Reading, Language, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

Core Curriculum Assessment Program (includes specific End-of-Course Tests for grades 7-12)

[CRT]

1-12

Elem. Reading/Language Arts (1-6), Elem. Math (1-6), Elem. Science (4-6), Secondary Science** (7-12), Secondary Math** (7-12)

No

No

Vermont

VT Comprehensive Assessment System [CRT]

2,4,6,8,10,

11

Reading (2), English/ Language Arts (4,8,10), Math (4,8,10), Science (6,11)

No

No

VT Math and Writing Portfolio Assessments [CRT]

4,5, 8,10

 

Math (4, 8, 10)

Writing (5, 8)

No

No

 

State

Assessment Component

Grades

Subject

Disaggregated Special Education Data

Part

Perf

Virginia

Standards of Learning (SOL) [CRT]

3,5,8

English, Math History, Science, Writing (5, 8), Computer Technology (5, 8)

No

No

Standards of Learning [CRT]

Beginning with the 9th grade class of 2000-01 these tests will be required to obtain a Standard or Advanced Diploma

9-12

English (9-11), Math (Algebra I, II, & Geometry), History/Social Science, Science (Earth, Biology, Chemistry)

No

No

VA State Assessment Program (VASP) (SAT-9-abbreviated) [NRT]

4,6,9

Reading, Language, Math [Science, Social Studies are optional]

Yes

Yes

Literacy Testing Program’s Literacy Passport Test [GRAD/ DIPLOMA]

6-12

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

Washington

WA Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) [CRT]

4,7,10

Reading, Writing, Listening, Math

Yes

Yes

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

3,6,9

Reading, Language (6), Expression (9), Math (3,6), Quantitative Thinking (9)

No

No

West Virginia

Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed. (SAT-9) [NRT]

3-11

Basic Skills (Reading, Math, Language)

Yes

Yes

WV Writing Assessment [CRT]

4,7,10

Writing

No

No

Wisconsin

WI Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) [CRT]

4,8,10

Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies

Yes

Yes

WI Comprehensive Reading Test (WCRT) [CRT]

3

Reading

No

No

Wyoming

WY Comprehensive Assessment System (WyCAS) [CRT]

4,8,10

Reading, Writing, Math

No

No

Terra Nova Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5) [NRT]

4,8,10

Reading, Language, Math

No

No

* = data is available in unbound documents but was not found on-line or in bound reports
= data was in a press release but not in any formal reports
= district tests only, there are no statewide exams
V = district participation in these exams are voluntary


Appendix C
Disaggregated Participation Information

 

State

Test

Count

Count Not Tested

Count Exempt

Count

Excluded

Percent of students tested

Percent of students not tested

Percent

Exempt

Percent

Excluded

Count and/or

Percent Absent

California

STAR

(SAT-9)

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Content Standard

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SABE/2

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colorado1,2

CSAP

·*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut

CMT

 

 

 

 

 

 

·

 

 

Delaware

DSTP

 (SAT-9)

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia

GHSGT

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBS

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Assessments

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Idaho

IDA

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITBS

TAP

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois

ISAT

 

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

Indiana2

ISTEP

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GQE

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kansas

KAS

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky

 

CTBS/5

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KCCT

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana3

 

LEAP 21

·

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

Maine

MEA

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland

MSPAP

·

 

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MFT

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massa-chusetts

MCAS

 

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi

CTBS/5

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLE

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing Assessment

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri

MAP

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Hampshire

NHEIAP

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

 

New Jersey

GEPA/ESPA

HSPT

·

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York

Career Education Proficiency Exams

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regents Comp-rehensive Exams

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regents Competency Test

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NYSAP

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State

Test

Count

Count Not Tested

Count Exempt

Count

Excluded

Percent of students tested

Percent of students not tested

Percent

Exempt

Percent

Excluded

Count and/or

Percent Absent

North Carolina1

End of Grade

 

·2

 

 

·

·

 

 

·

·

 

Grade 3 Pretest

·2

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

Writing test

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High School Comp-rehensive Test

·2

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

End of Course

·2

 

 

·

 

 

 

·

 

 

Computer Test

·2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open ended assessments

·2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ohio

OPT

 

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

 

OPT (Grade 9 Proficiency)

 

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

Oklahoma

Core Curriculum Tests

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon

OSA

·

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island2

Writing Assessment

Health Education Assessment

·

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina

PAT

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CSAB

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas

TAAS

·

·

·

 

 

 

 

 

·

 

RPTE

·

·

·

 

 

 

 

 

·

 

EOC

·

·

·

 

 

 

 

 

·

 

Exit Level TAAS

·

·

·

 

 

 

 

 

·

Utah

SAT-9

·

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Virginia

VSAP

·

 

 

 

 

 

·

 

 

Washington

WASL

·

 

 

 

 

·

·

 

 

West Virginia4

SAT-9

 

 

 

 

·

 

 

 

 

Wisconsin *

WKCE

 

 

 

·

 

·

 

 

 

© 2007 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Online Privacy Statement
This page was last updated on May 20, 2013

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