Sheryl S. Lazarus and Mari Quanbeck
June 2023
All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Lazarus, S. S., & Quanbeck, M. (2023). The relationship between student placement and AA-AAAS participation rates(NCEO Report 439). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
This report is an updated version of the following paper:
Lazarus, S. S., & Quanbeck, M. (2023). The relationship between student placement and AA-AAAS participation rates. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, April 12-15.
The alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) is designed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), placed a 1% cap for states on student participation in the AA-AAAS. This meant that states, districts, and individualized education program (IEP) teams needed to carefully consider which students should be included in these assessments. When ESSA was enacted, about two-thirds of the states had more than 1% of their students in the AA-AAAS (Thurlow & Wu, 2018).
In recent years, states have made substantive progress in reducing participation rates (Wu et al., 2023) through efforts such as revising participation guidelines and accessibility policies, providing professional development on making participation decisions, and monitoring participation decisions. Students who were easily recognized as being inappropriately in the AA-AAAS were transitioned to the general assessment, but many states are still above the 1% cap and continue to struggle to reduce participation rates.
This report presents the findings of a study that looked at the relationship between states’ percentage of students participating in the AA-AAAS and the percentage of students in more restrictive learning environments. Pearson correlations were conducted to determine the nature of relationships. Data used in this analysis were for 2018-19. The percentage of students participating in the AA-AAAS in each state was calculated by using EdFacts and Office of Special Education Program (OSEP) data for 2018-19. The source for data on student placement was 618 data that states are required to submit to show compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements. In this analysis more restrictive environment was computed by summing the percentage of students in the following educational environment placement categories: (1) inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; (2) separate school, residential facility; (3) homebound/hospital; (4) correctional facility; and (5) parentally placed in private school.
This study found that states with higher percentages of students in more restrictive environments tended to have higher percentages of students participating in the AA-AAAS for both mathematics and reading. This suggests that in states where a higher percentage of students with disabilities were taught in inclusive settings, the students may have had access to more rigorous academic standards-based content, and thus IEP teams in those states may have been more likely to decide that a student with disabilities on the border between the alternate assessment and the general assessment met participation guidelines for the general assessment.
It is important to remember that the results do not suggest a causal relationship, but rather indicate that there was a correlation between the percentage of students in more restrictive environments in a state and the percentage of students participating in the AA-AAAS. A limitation of this study is that the EdFacts and OSEP data for student placement included data for all students with disabilities, not just those who participated in the AA-AAAS.
States and their districts may want to consider ways to create more inclusive learning environments. The report concluded with a discussion of several components identified in Lazarus et al. (2019) as important drivers in creating and sustaining systems change efforts that support more inclusive educational practices: (a) a common vision; (b) a common understanding of and a commitment to the change process; (c) effective formalized structures for top-down, bottom up, and sideways communications; (d) meaningful data; and (e) coordinated efforts at multiple levels.
Alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) are designed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to participate in the general assessment even with accommodations. In 2003, regulations were added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that allowed states to count students with significant cognitive disabilities as proficient who took an AA-AAAS. The regulations also indicated that no more than 1% of students in a state would be counted as proficient using an AA-AAAS. The 2015 reauthorization of ESEA, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), changed the requirement. ESSA reaffirmed that the AA-AAAS is appropriate for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, but instead of placing a cap on accountability proficiency rates, it put a state-level 1% cap on participation in the AA-AAAS (Thurlow et al., 2017).
This meant that states, districts, and individualized education program (IEP) teams needed to carefully consider which students should be included in these assessments (Thurlow et al., 2021; Thurlow & Lazarus, 2017). When ESSA was enacted, about two-thirds of the states had more than 1% of their students in the AA-AAAS (Wu & Thurlow, 2017). In recent years, states have made substantive progress in reducing participation rates through efforts such as revising participation guidelines and accessibility policies, providing professional development on making participation decisions, and monitoring participation decisions (Hinkle et al., 2022; Quanbeck et al., 2023). Students who were easily recognized as being inappropriately in the AA-AAAS were transitioned to the general assessment, but many states are still above the 1% cap and continue to struggle to reduce participation rates (Hinkle et al).
There is a need to get a better understanding of why so many students are still participating in the AA-AAAS in many states. Little is known about whether the learning environment of a student affects assessment participation decisions despite research showing that students with significant cognitive disabilities have improved outcomes when taught in inclusive settings (e.g., Gee et al., 2020; Ryndak et al., 2012). Research has also shown that placement in inclusive settings increases student access to the general education curriculum (Sauer & Jorgensen, 2016; Quirk et al., 2017; Soukup et al., 2007). However, there is wide variation across states in terms of the rates of placement in inclusive settings (White et al., 2018), with the percentage of students with disabilities who spend less than 40% of their school day in the general education classroom ranging from 8.1% to 30.1 % across states in 2018 (U.S. Department of Education, 2021).
In order to learn more about the relationship between student placement and participation in the AA-AAAS, we conducted an analysis that examined the relationship between states’ participation rates for the AA-AAAS and the percentage of students in more segregated educational environments in the state. We hypothesized that a reason some states are still exceeding the 1% cap is that many students with disabilities in those states were taught in more segregated learning settings and thus were not getting access to the rigorous standards-based content that might increase that likelihood that IEP teams would decide a student should participate in the general assessment.
The percentage of students participating in the AA-AAAS in each state was calculated by using EdFacts and Office of Special Education Program (OSEP) data for 2018-19. The source for data on student placement was 618 data that states are required to submit to show compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements (U.S. Department of Education, 2021, nd). The percentage of students with disabilities in each state in segregated settings, which we refer to as a more restrictive environment (MRE), was computed by summing the percentage of students in the following educational environment placement categories: (1) inside the regular class less than 40% of the day; (2) separate school, residential facility; (3) homebound/hospital; (4) correctional facility; and (5) parentally placed in private school. For the purposes of this study, students who spent 80% or more of the school day or 40-79% of the school day inside the regular classroom were considered to be in more inclusive settings. The placement categories are the ones used for IDEA reporting.
The source of the data for states’ 2018-19 AA-AAAS participation rates was Wu et al. (2022). Wu et al. calculated the percentages for reading and math based on the states’ total tested population in each subject, as required by ESSA.
Pearson correlations were conducted to determine the nature of any relationship between the percentage of students with disabilities MREs participating in the AA-AAAS across states.
Mathematics. As shown in Figure 1, Pearson correlations suggest a moderate positive correlation between the percentage of students in MREs and the percentage of students participating in the mathematics AA-AAAS (r = 0.346). States with higher percentages of students in MREs were more likely to have higher percentages of students participating in the mathematics AA-AAAS.
Figure 1. Correlation Between States’ Percent Placement in MREs and Math AA-AAAS Participation Rates
r = 0.346
Reading. As shown in Figure 2, Pearson correlations suggest a moderate positive correlation between the percentage of students in MREs and the percentage of students participating in the reading AA-AAAS (r = 0.411). States with higher percentages of students in MREs were more likely to have higher percentages of students participating in the reading AA-AAAS.
Figure 2: Correlation between States’ Percent Placement in MREs and Reading AA-AAAS Participation Rates
r = 0.411
States with higher percentages of students in MREs tended to have higher percentages of students participating in the AA-AAAS for both mathematics and reading. This suggests that in states where a higher percentage of students with disabilities were taught in inclusive settings, the students may have had access to more rigorous academic standards-based content, and that IEP teams in those states may have been more likely to decide that a student with disabilities on the border between the AA-AAAS and general assessment met participation guidelines for the general assessment.
It is important to remember that the results do not suggest a causal relationship, but rather indicate that there was a correlation between the percentage of students in MREs in a state and the percentage of students participating in the AA-AAAS. This correlation suggests a need for additional research to get a better understanding of the relationship.
A limitation of this study is that the EdFacts and OSEP data for student placement included data for all students with disabilities, not just those who participated in the AA-AAAS. Specifically, placement data are not reported separately for students who participate in the AA-AAAS (i.e., students with the most significant cognitive disabilities). Actual placement data may be different for students who participate in the AA-AAAS which would affect the correlations.
States have worked hard to reduce the percentage of students with disabilities in AA-AAAS, but the findings of this study suggest that the percentage might be further reduced if more students with disabilities were taught in more inclusive settings. Some states have long histories of providing instruction for many students with disabilities in more segregated settings (Wakeman et al., 2022), and it can be challenging to bring about and sustain the systems change needed to support more inclusive educational practices—and ultimately improve instruction and outcomes for all students, including students on the border between the AA-AAAS and the general assessment. Lazarus et al. (2019) identified several components associated with effective and sustainable efforts related to implementation of inclusive practices:
Gee, K., Gonzalez, M., & Cooper, C. (2020). Outcomes of inclusive versus separate placements:
A matched pairs comparison study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
45(4), 223-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920943469
Hinkle, A. R., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Strunk, K. (2022). State approaches to monitoring AA-AAAS participation decisions (NCEO Report 432). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport432.pdf
Lazarus, S. S., Ryndak, D. L., Howley, C. B., McDaid, P., Liu, K. K., Taub, D., Howley, A., Cosier, M., Clifton, J., Telfer, D., Holden. K., Thurlow, M. L., & Vandercook, T. (2019). Using systems change efforts to implement and sustain inclusive education practices in general education settings for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: A review of the literature (TIES Center Report 102). TIES Center. https://files.nceo.info/files/GQxH63Nx4i/ties-center-report-102
Quanbeck, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2023). 2021-22 participation guidelines and definitions for alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (NCEO Report 440). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport440.pdf
Quirk, C., Ryndak, D. L., & Taub, D. (2017). Research and evidence-based practices to promote
membership and learning in general education for students with extensive support needs. Inclusion, 5(2), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-5.2.94
Ryndak, D., Alper, S., Hughes,C., & McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting impact of educational contexts on long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 127-138. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880094
Sauer, J. S., & Jorgensen, C. M. (2016). Still caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of least restrictive environment and its effect on placement of students with intellectual disability. Inclusion, 4(2), 56-74. http://dx.doi.org.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/10.1352/2326-6988-4.2.56
Soukup, J. H., & Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,74(1), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707400106
Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. (2017). Strategies for meeting the 1% state-level cap on participation in the alternate assessment (NCEO Brief 12). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOBrief12OnePercentCap.pdf
Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Larson, E. D., Albus, D. A., Liu, K. K., & Kwong, E. (2017). Alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Participation guidelines and definitions (NCEO Report 406). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport406.pdf
Thurlow, M. L., Strunk, K., Hall, S., & Hawes, M. (2021). IEP team resource: Making decisions about participation in the alternate assessment (NCEO Tool 10). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/Tool10_IEPTeamResource.pdf
Thurlow, M. L., & Wu, Y.-C. (2018). 2015-2016 APR snapshot #18: AA-AAS participation and performance. National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/APRsnapshot/brief17
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). 42nd annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2020. Office of Special Education Programs. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/42nd-arc-for-idea.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (nd). Exhibit 68. Percentage of students ages 6 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, by educational environment and State: Fall 2018. IDEA Section 618 Data Products. Office of Special Education Programs. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/index.html
Wakeman, S., Wu, Y.-C., Ghere, G., Johnson, H., Bowman, J., & Clausen, A. M. (2022). Separate school placement trends by category and age for students with extensive support needs (TIES Center Report 105). TIES Center. https://files.nceo.info/files/AikhMqAAiC/ties-center-report-105?preferredLocale=en-US
White, J. M., Cosier, M., & Taub, D. (2018). How states interpret the LRE clause of IDEA: A policy analysis. TIES Center. https://files.tiescenter.org/files/YQ-9ytntpK/ties-center-report-101.pdf?preferredLocale=en-US
Wu, Y.-C., Lazarus, S. S., Liu, K. K., & Thurlow, M. L. (2022). 2018-2019 APR snapshot #27: AA-AAAS participation and performance (APR Snapshot 27). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/APRsnapshot/brief27
Wu, Y.-C., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2023). Meeting the 1% AA-AAAS participation requirement (NCEO Brief 29). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOBrief29.pdf
Wu, Y.-C. & Thurlow, M. L. (2017). 2014-2015 AA-AAS participation and performance (APR Snapshot 15). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/APRsnapshot/brief15