Mari Quanbeck, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Martha L. Thurlow
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:
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.
In the years since the 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) placed a 1.0% cap for states on participation in the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS), states have worked hard to navigate the new restrictions on participation in this assessment. This 1.0% cap limits participation in the AA-AAAS to students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities.” To meet this requirement, states have developed guidelines, definitions, and decision-making tools to assist individualized education program (IEP) teams in determining which students are eligible to participate in the AA-AAAS.
This report provides an update to previous analyses of the guidelines, definitions, and criteria states have developed for making decisions about AA-AAAS participation. We analyzed criteria that should be used and factors that should not be used to determine participation, the state definitions of “most significant cognitive disabilities,” the information provided to parents about the AA-AAAS, mentions of English learners in materials related to the AA-AAAS, exemption and non-exemption materials regarding participation, and the content areas for which participation decisions are made.
In this analysis of the 2021-22 policies of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, the most commonly included criteria for participation in the AA-AAAS were: (a) extensive individualized instruction or supports (N=51); (b) significant cognitive disability, or significantly affected cognitive or adaptive function (N=51); (c) has disability or IEP (N=51); and (d) alternate or modified curriculum standards (N=42). The most frequent factors that are not to be used in making participation decisions were: (a) poor performance or impact on accountability system (N=48); (b) excessive absences (N=46); (c) social, cultural, linguistic, or economic factors (N=46); and (d) disability label, placement, or services (N=46). Forty-six states met the criteria for having an explicit definition of “most significant cognitive disabilities,” and the most common components of definitions were: significant cognitive/intellectual deficits (N=41) and poor adaptive skill level (N=38).
We also analyzed materials related to parent information, English learner mentions, exemption materials, and content areas for participation. Forty-seven states included some form of parent information related to the AA-AAAS, with the most common components included in the information being notification that their student would participate in the AA-AAAS (N=31), mention of academic standards (N=24), and mention of the effect on diploma type or post-secondary options (N=23).
English learner mentions most frequently indicated that English learner or English language proficiency (ELP) assessments should be used as evidence when making participation decisions (N=15), while ten states noted that assessments used for decision making, such as IQ tests, should be in the student’s first language. The two most common reasons that exemptions from participation were acceptable were medical emergency (N=8) and the one-year English learner exemption (N=3). Regarding whether students must take the AA-AAAS for all content areas, 20 states indicated that students must take the same assessment (either the AA-AAAS or the general assessment) for all content areas, whereas five states indicated that IEP teams could make decisions for each content area separately.
There was an overall increase in information available for this analysis compared to previous analyses, with almost all states (N=46) including definitions of “most significant cognitive disabilities.” Additionally, most states provided information on criteria or tools for decision making in more than one format.
With the 1% participation cap, states have needed ways to better identify the students who should take the AA-AAAS. The requirement may have prompted states to develop more detailed and more consistent guidelines for participation. By ensuring that all individuals involved in decision making have access to clear and consistent guidelines for participation, states may be able to better identify the students for whom the AA-AAAS is appropriate, and thus lower their participation rates.
Since 2017-18, the U.S. Department of Education has held states to a 1.0% cap on participation in the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). The 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is often referred to as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), enacted this requirement in 2015 to ensure that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participated in these assessments. ESSA also required that states develop a definition of students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities.”
State participation guidelines should be followed when the individualized education program (IEP) team decides whether a student should participate in the general assessment or the AA-AAAS. Although states need to meet that 1% threshold on participation in AA-AAAS, they are not allowed to infringe on the decision making of IEP teams. To assist IEP teams in their decision making, states have attempted to create clear definitions, guidelines, and decision-making tools. In recent years many states have continued to be above the 1% cap (Wu et al., 2022), and have worked to refine and improve their policies, tools, and resources on participation in the AA-AAAS to better support IEP teams in making appropriate participation decisions.
In both 2017 and 2019, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) conducted analyses of state AA-AAAS participation policies (Thurlow et al., 2017, 2019). Both reports found that all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, had participation guidelines with participation criteria at the time of the analysis. For each analysis, the three most common participation criteria were: (a) significant cognitive disability, or significantly affected cognitive and adaptive function; (b) extensive individualized instruction or supports; and (c) alternate or modified curriculum standards. The most common factor not to be used in participation decisions was social, cultural, language, or environmental factors across both analyses, but the second most common factor that was not allowed in the 2017 analysis was excessive absences, while the second most common factor in the 2019 analysis was disability label, placement, or services, with nine more states including this factor in 2019 than in 2017. The number of states that included an explicit definition of “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” increased from 17 states in 2016-17 to 36 states in 2018-19.
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on state participation criteria, guidelines, and decision-making tools for the AA-AAAS. As states continue to make progress toward meeting the 1.0% participation cap, the resources on state websites have increased. In this report, we analyzed the same elements as in the previous reports: participation criteria, factors not to be used for participation decisions, formats of resources and tools, and the existence of explicit definitions of students with “significant cognitive disabilities.” The report also provides an update on the types of information provided to parents about the AA-AAAS, the extent to which English learners are addressed, and the inclusion of information about exemptions.
In June and July 2022, NCEO staff searched the websites of 51 state education agencies (50 states and the District of Columbia) to collect AA-AAAS policy information in the following areas: (a) participation criteria for the AA-AAAS; (b) factors that should not be used in making decisions; (c) the format in which information was presented; (d) the definition of “student with a significant cognitive disability”; and (e) other notes, such as information provided to parents, information about English learners, and exemptions.
The collected documents included the most recently dated materials of the following types: test administration and test coordinator manuals, accessibility manuals, participation guideline documents and tools, state home pages for the AA-AAAS, state materials for parents on the AA-AAAS (including Frequently Asked Questions – FAQ – pages online), and professional development materials for educators such as webinar presentations. If states had multiple documents and there were differences in the level of detail of the policies among documents, staff used the documents deemed to be the main policy document with the most detail (e.g., the policy from a document labeled “Participation Guidelines” would be used rather than the brief summary of the policy included in the “Test Administration Manual”).
When determining whether a state provided a definition of students with significant cognitive disabilities, staff looked for explicit definitions, such as “students with significant cognitive disabilities are…” If a state did not explicitly define what it meant for a student to have a significant cognitive disability but rather implied this through the criteria, it was not counted as having a definition for this analysis.
The information was compiled and summarized, and entered into state profile forms that were sent to the states for verification. They were sent to state assessment and special education directors in November 2022. The directors, or their designee, were given two weeks to respond. Appendix A shows the text of the email, and Appendix B provides a sample state profile summary. Nineteen states responded to the verification request, either confirming the information in the profile as correct (N=8) or suggesting changes, with locations of the new information (N=11). The edits ranged from minor changes (e.g., clarifying what was meant by a criterion for participation) to larger changes (e.g., identifying information about the AA-AAAS for parents that was not previously found).
All 51 states had documents that included the participation criteria for the AA-AAAS. These criteria must be met in order for a student to participate in the alternate assessment. The most commonly mentioned criteria are shown in Figure 1: extensive individualized instruction or supports (N=51); significant cognitive disability, or significantly affected cognitive or adaptive function (N=51); has disability or IEP (N=51); and alternate or modified curriculum standards (N=42). Other criteria mentioned by at least two states included: parent informed (N=17), affects post-school outcomes (N=7), cannot show learning on general assessment (N=3), and reference to standard deviation on test (N=2). Twenty-seven states included criteria coded as “Other.” These criteria included elements such as IQ scores; enrollment in appropriate courses; and difficulties with academic demands not being due to specific factors such as excessive absences or social, cultural, or linguistic factors. For more details by state, and for notes on the “Other” category, see Appendix C.
Figure 1. AA-AAAS Participation Criteria, 2022
Note: N=51. Multiple criteria could be identified by each state.
Fifty states mentioned factors that should not be used in participation decisions. (We did not find a list of factors not to consider for Connecticut.) When coding documents for these factors, only factors that were explicitly included in the participation guidelines or list of factors not to be used were coded. Factors that were included elsewhere in text, such as in detailed explanations in professional development materials, were therefore not included under this category of criteria that should not be used for AA-AAAS decisions.
Figure 2 shows the factors most commonly included in state documents that could not be used. Almost all states included the following as elements not to be used: poor performance or impact on accountability system (N=48); excessive absences (N=46); social, cultural, linguistic, or economic factors (N=46); and disability label, placement, or services (N=46). Additional factors that were mentioned by the majority of states included English learner status (N=42); administrator decision (N=40); foreseen disruptive behavior (N=38); foreseen emotional distress (N=36); and need for accommodations (N=32). Two factors were identified in this analysis that were not identified in previous analyses: low reading or achievement level (N=36) and percentage of time receiving special education services (N=32). Other factors listed by at least two states included: other disabilities (N=8); IQ scores alone (N=3). Additionally there were several other factors that were listed by only one state. These were coded as “Other” (N=11). This included one state that indicated use of the 1% cap on participation in the AA-AAAS could not be considered. For specific details, see Appendix D.
Figure 2. Factors Not to Be Used as a Basis for AA-AAAS Participation Decisions
Note: N=51. Multiple factors could be identified for each state.
Although all 51 states included information about participation criteria in their documents, the exact format and presentation of this information differed across states. Figure 3 shows the most frequently used formats. The most common format was description or text, with 47 states presenting the criteria this way. Every state also included companion documents or supplemental ways of presenting the information, such as checklists (N=38) or decision trees/flowcharts (N=26). Eighteen states used some other format to present participation criteria, such as worksheets, rubrics, PowerPoint presentations, and case studies. See Appendix E for more details on Figure 3. See Appendix F for examples of tools.
Figure 3. Format of Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS
Note: N=51. Multiple formats could be identified for each state.
In addition to mentioning specific factors to be used or not to be used in decisions for AA-AAAS, most states (N=46) included explicit definitions of what it means to be a student with a significant cognitive disability. We did not find definitions for Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, or Virginia. To be coded as having a definition, the state must use language such as, “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are…” or “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are typically characterized by…” Descriptions that were not presented as a definition, such as lists of characteristics (e.g., criteria), were not counted as being a definition. Although almost all states included definitions, the depth and length of the definitions varied greatly. Some states’ definitions were one or two sentences long and were relatively broad, while other definitions were a paragraph or longer and specified numerous distinct characteristics that must fit a student. All definitions can be found in Appendix G.
Figure 4 shows the components most commonly included in states’ definitions of significant cognitive disabilities. Although some of these components are reminiscent of factors that were included in lists of criteria not to be used for decision making, they were only included here if they were in a state’s explicit definition of significant cognitive disabilities. Almost all states included “significant cognitive/intellectual deficits” (N=41) and “poor adaptive skill level” (N=38) in their definitions. Other components that were frequently included were: extensive, individualized direct instruction (N=23); pervasive need across settings or time (N=19); reference score for IQ or adaptive function (N=15); and unable to reach grade level standards (N=14). Five additional components were included in the definitions of 11 states or fewer: not solely based on IQ score, holistic (N=10); need for communication/assistive technology (N=7); not due to certain disabilities (N=6); not due to excessive absences (N=6); and not due to social, cultural, or economic factors (N=5).
Figure 4. Components of State Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities
Note: N=46. Multiple criteria could be identified for each state.
Additionally, 28 state definitions included components that fell under the “Other” category. These definitions included components such as:
Additional details can be found in Appendix H.
Forty-seven states included some form of parent information in their documents, although the format and purpose of this information varied across states. Some documents, such as parent brochures, flyers, or FAQs, focused on providing general information about the AA-AAAS (N=37), while other documents, such as decision-making forms or parent notification letters, specifically notified parents about what student participation in AA-AAAS meant in terms of the type of standards used and the impact on post-school outcomes, such as type of diplomas offered. Many documents that notified parents about their student’s participation in the AA-AAAS included common components, which are shown in Figure 5. The most common components were general notification that their student would take the AA-AAAS (N=31), mentions of academic standards (N=24), mention of the effect on diploma type or post-secondary options (N=23), requirement of parent/guardian signature or initials (N=19), and informing of options if the parent/guardian does not agree (N=4). One state included an “Other” category, with the requirement that students are also informed of their participation in the AA-AAAS. Details by state can be found in Appendix I. Although all types of documents were analyzed for Table I-1, the contents of flyers or FAQ documents were not included in Table I-3.
Figure 5. How Parent or Guardian is Informed in Materials for AA-AAAS
Note: N=47. Multiple materials could be identified for each state.
Twenty-two states included mentions of English learners in their materials about AA-AAAS. Of these 22 states, 15 indicated that English learner or English language proficiency (ELP) assessments should be used as evidence when making participation decisions (see Figure 6). Ten states noted that assessments used for decision making, such as IQ tests, should be in the student’s first language. Three states included English learner considerations that might interfere with showing their abilities, and two states mentioned the one-year exemption on the English language arts (ELA) assessment for English learners who are new to the United States. If states only mentioned English learners in their lists of factors that should not be used for making participation decisions, they were not counted here. Additional details by state can be found in Appendix J.
Figure 6. Mentions of English Learners or Language in Criteria Evidence for Alternate Assessment
Note: N=22. Multiple mentions could be identified for each state.
This section describes the information included in AA-AAAS materials that addressed exemptions from the assessment. Fourteen states included information about when exemptions were allowed or what types of exemptions were acceptable (see Figure 7). The most common reason that exemptions were acceptable was for a significant medical emergency (N=8), while three states mentioned a one-year English learner exemption from the English language arts assessment if students were in their first year of enrollment in the U.S. Eight states also included “Other” information, such as statements that there are no exemptions from participation or information about exemptions for students who receive services at an out-of-state residential program. See Appendix K for details.
Figure 7. Exemption and Non-Exemption Information
Note: N=14
Twenty-five states discussed whether a student must take the AA-AAAS for all content areas, with 20 states indicating that students must take either the general assessment or the AA-AAAS for all content areas, and five states (Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York) indicating that students may take the AA-AAAS for some content areas and the general assessment for other content areas (see Figure 8). One state (Colorado) highlighted that requiring students to take either the general assessment or the AA-AAAS for all content areas was a relatively recent change for that state from previous years when IEP teams could determine eligibility for each content area separately. Several states noted that requiring students to take either the general assessment or the AA-AAAS for all content areas reflected the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability, which was an eligibility criterion for many states. Additional details can be found in Appendix L.
Figure 8. Content Areas for AA-AAAS
Note: N=25
This analysis of state polices on participation in the AA-AAAS followed previous reviews (Thurlow et al., 2017; Thurlow et al., 2019). Many findings were similar to those of previous reviews, although there was more information available and more detailed policies for 2022 than in earlier years. To meet the 1.0% participation cap required by federal law and to ensure that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participate in the AA-AAAS, states have continued to develop and refine their participation criteria and tools for decision making.
The most frequently identified criteria to be used for assessment participation decision making were extensive individualized instruction or supports and significant cognitive disability, as well as having a disability or IEP. All three criteria were included by all 51 states.
The top four most common criteria that were identified as factors not to be used for decision making were poor performance or impact on accountability system; excessive absences; social, cultural, linguistic, or economic factors; and disability label, placement, or services. Additionally, English learner status was identified as a factor that could not be considered by 42 states.
The participation guidelines, criteria, and decision-making tools were presented in a variety of ways. Almost all states used description/text (N=47), but almost as many used checklists (N=38), and just over half provided flowcharts or decision trees (N=26). Other formats included training slides or videos, student case examples, and worksheets to be completed by IEP teams.
Within a single state, the documents that provided information about making participation decisions varied in their level of detail. Some documents included only a brief section of text outlining participation eligibility, such as accessibility manuals or test coordinator manuals, while other documents exclusively focused on participation decision making, such as decision-making flowcharts or participation guidelines.
All but five states had an explicit definition for students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities.” Two of the top components in the definition were significant cognitive/intellectual deficits and poor adaptive skill level.
Over half of states (N=37) had documents that provided parents with general information about AA-AAAS, such as flyers, brochures, or parent notification letters that outlined the basic information about AA-AAAS. Some state documents also included details about what information must be provided to parents. The most common components were: that the student will take AA-AAAS (N=31), mentions of academic standards (N=24), effect on diploma type or post-secondary options (N=23), and parent/guardian signature or initials (N=19).
Forty-two states in 2022 included English learner status as a factor not to be used in decision making. Fewer states, however, included mentions of English learners in the participation criteria for the AA-AAAS, with only 23 states including these mentions. Fifteen states mentioned that English learner and language assessments could be used as evidence for meeting the criteria for participating in the AA-AAAS, and 10 mentioned that assessments used as evidence should be given in the student’s first language. Only two states mentioned the one-year exemption on the English language arts assessment for English learners who have been enrolled in school in the U.S. for less than one year.
This review also considered information on exemption and non-exemption from the AA-AAAS. Fourteen states mentioned acceptable exemptions, with the most common reasons being the one-year English learner exemption and a significant medical emergency.
About half of states (N=25) included information about whether students must take the AA-AAAS for all content areas. Twenty states indicated that if students participated in the AA-AAAS, they must do so for all content areas, whereas five states indicated that IEP teams could make decisions about participation for each content area separately.
With states held to the 1% participation cap by the U.S. Department of Education since the 2017-18 school year, states have needed ways to better identify the students who should actually take the AA-AAAS. This requirement may have prompted states to develop more detailed and more consistent guidelines for participation, which could explain the increase in the number of states with explicit definitions of “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” and with multiple formats for disseminating the decision-making materials. By ensuring that all individuals involved in the decision-making process have access to clear and consistent guidelines for participation, states may be able to better identify the students for whom the AA-AAAS is appropriate and thus lower their participation rates to meet the 1% participation cap.
Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301. (2015). https://congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf
Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D. A., Larson, E. D., & Liu, K. K. (2019). 2018-19 participation guidelines and definitions for alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (NCEO Report 415). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
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.
Wu, Y.-C., Lazarus, S. S., Liu, K. K., & Thurlow, M. L. (2022). 2018-2019 APR snapshot #27: AA-AAAS participation and performance. National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Email Requesting Verification
The National Center on Educational Outcomes is examining the ways in which states address who participates in alternate assessment. Our goal is to examine:
a) Definitions of “significant cognitive disabilities” (SCD) (Note: Only states with documents that contain explicit phrases defining/explaining SCD, such as “students with SCD are…”, “SCD are defined as…” etc., are identified as “defines SCD”);
b) Participation criteria for alternate assessment;
c) Format of participation criteria for alternate assessment
To address this goal, we reviewed your state website for assessment participation guidelines and forms to document decision making during June and July 2022 and summarized them into tables, attached to this email, for your review.
Please verify all included information. Specifically, please return the tables that we have attached, noting your changes to them and the website source for these changes. Address your responses to Mari Quanbeck via email at [email address removed].
If you have any other questions about our request, please email Mari Quanbeck. Please respond by December 12. Thank you for taking the time to provide this information.
Mari Quanbeck, Graduate Research Assistant, NCEO
Connecticut
Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS
| State | Has Disability or IEP | Significant Cognitive Disability, or Significantly Affected Cognitive and Adaptive Function | Alternate or Modified Curriculum Standards | Extensive Individualized Instruction and/or Supports | Cannot Show Learning on General Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | X | X | X |
| State | Parent Informed | Reference to Standard Deviation on Test | No Reading and Expression not Through Oral/Written Communication | Effects Post School Outcomes | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT |
Factors Not to Be Used as Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS
| State | Social, Cultural, Linguistic, or Economic Factors | Disability Label, Placement, or Services | Excess-ive Absences | Need for Accomm-odations | Foreseen Emotional Distress | Foreseen Disruptive Behavior | Percentage of Time Receiving Special Education Services |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT |
| State | Low Reading or Achieve-ment Level | Poor Perfor-mance or Impact on Accountability System | Administrator Decision | Other Disabilities* (e.g., SLD) | English Learner Status | IQ Scores Alone | Other* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT |
Format of Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessment
| State | Description/Text | Flow Chart/Decision Tree | Checklist | Other | Name of Alternate Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | X | X | X (Eligibility form) | Connecticut Alternate Assessment (CTAA) |
State Alternate Assessment Resources for “Other” Format Category
| State | “Other” Resource Links |
|---|---|
| CT | https://ct.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/connecticut/pdf/2020/ct-alternate-assessment-eligibility-form.pdf |
Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities
| State | Definition and Source |
|---|---|
| CT | Students with a significant cognitive disability eligible for partition in the Alternate Assessment System are identified as individuals who: ▪ Have an intellectual impairment, as documented through an assessment of cognitive functioning that places the individual significantly below age level expectations; ▪ Demonstrate adaptive behavior skills (i.e., those conceptual, social and practical skills necessary to meet the common demands of everyday life) that is well below age level expectations; and ▪ Require intensive, repeated individualized instruction and use substantially adapted materials, assistive technology, and individualized methods of accessing information to acquire, maintain, demonstrate, and transfer skills across multiple settings. Assessment Guidelines (pp. 13-14) Source: https://ct.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/connecticut/pdf/2019/csde-assessment-guidelines.pdf |
Criteria Included in Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities
| State | Significant Cognitive/Intellectual Deficits | Poor Adaptive Skill Level | Unable to Reach Grade Level Standards | Extensive, Individualized, Direct Instruction | Pervasive Needs Across Settings or Time | Reference Score for IQ and/or Adaptive Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | X | X | X | X |
| State | Not Solely Based on IQ Score, Holistic | Not Due to Excessive Absences | Not Due to Certain Disabilities (e.g., SLD) | Not Due to Social, Cultural, or Economic Factors | Need for Communication/Assistive Technology Systems | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | X |
How Parent/Guardian is Informed in Materials for AA-AAAS
| State | Student Will Take AA-AAAS | Mentions Academic Standards | Effect on Diploma Type or Post-Secondary Options | Inform Student Also | Parent/ Guardian Signature or Initials |
Inform of Options if Parent/ Guardian Does Not Agree | Provides Information to Parents about AA-AAAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | X |
Parent Information Texts
| State | Parent Text |
|---|---|
| CT |
Mentions of English Learners or Language in Criteria Evidence for Alternate Assessment
| State | EL and Language Assessments Evidence for Criteria | EL Considerations that May Interfere in Showing Abilities (e.g., adaptive tests) | Use Assessments in Student’s First Language | One-year Exemption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT | X |
Nature of English Learner Mentions
| State | English Learner Text |
|---|---|
| CT | Considerations:
▪ Records that include results of cognitive testing, adaptive behavior assessments, achievement tests, districtwide assessments, and English learner assessments, if applicable. |
Exemption and Non-Exemption Texts
| State | Types of Exemption and Non-Exemptions |
|---|---|
| CT | Students with Temporary Medical Conditions Attending School Every year during statewide testing, there are cases of students with various medical conditions that effect their ability to participate in testing. In some cases, the student may have a note from a medical professional stating that the student should be excused from participating in testing. State law stipulates that all public school students in the specified grades who receive educational services must participate in statewide assessments. In some cases, a student may have been injured or the student’s medical condition may temporarily impact his or her ability to complete the test (e.g., broken hand or arm, concussion). Under the law, there is no exemption from administering the statewide test to these students. Therefore, to test the injured student, the first option would be to delay testing until later in the test administration window to give the student enough time to recover. A student who is injured in the days just before or during test administration may have a temporary disability, and may be eligible for accommodations on statewide testing using the Special Documented Accommodations Petition Process (see Appendix C) . If the student is determined to be eligible for accommodations having received an approval for the Special Documented Accommodation Petition the student may participate in statewide assessments using the approved accommodations. Contact the Performance Office to discuss options. Definition: In Connecticut, the exemption determination for a medical emergency rests primarily on the following criteria: The student is unable to attend school and is medically/emotionally unavailable for homebound/hospitalized instruction. Students who are hospitalized or homebound due to illness should be tested unless there are medical constraints. These students can have the test administered at home or in the hospital provided the test is administered by a certified school staff member who is fully trained in the proper test administration and security procedures for the Smarter Balanced Assessments, NGSS, Connecticut SAT School Day, CTAA, and CTAS. In rare cases, there may be a student who experiences a medical emergency just prior to (or during) the testing window. There is a process whereby, the student may receive an exemption from testing due to the emergency nature of the medical condition, if the criteria for exemption are met. |
| State | Name of Alternate Assessment |
|---|---|
| Alabama (AL) | Alabama Comprehensive Assessment Program Alternate (ACAP Alternate) |
| Alaska (AK) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Arizona (AZ) | Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA) |
| Arkansas (AR) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| California (CA) | California Alternate Assessment (CAA) |
| Colorado (CO) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Connecticut (CT) | Connecticut Alternate Assessment (CTAA) |
| Delaware (DE) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| District of Columbia (DC) | DC Alternate Assessment |
| Florida (FL) | Florida Standards Alternate Assessment (FSAA) |
| Georgia (GA) | Georgia Alternate Assessment 2.0 (GAA) |
| Hawaii (HI) | Hawaii State Alternate Assessment (I-Alt) |
| Idaho (ID) | Idaho Alternate Assessment (IDAA) |
| Illinois (IL) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Indiana (IN) | Indiana’s Alternate Measure (I AM) |
| Iowa (IA) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Kansas (KA) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Kentucky (KY) | KY Alternate Assessment |
| Louisiana (LA) | LEAP Connect |
| Maine (ME) | Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA) |
| Maryland (MD) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Massachusetts (MA) | Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System Alternate (MCAS-Alt) |
| Michigan (MI) | MI-Access |
| Minnesota (MN) | Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (MTAS) |
| Mississippi (MS) | Mississippi Academic Assessment Program – Alternate (MAAP-A) |
| Missouri (MO) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Montana (MT) | Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA) Alternate Montana Science Assessment (AMSA) |
| Nebraska (NE) | Nebraska’s Student Centered Assessment System - Alternate Assessment (NSCAS-AA) |
| Nevada (NV) | Nevada Alternate Assessment (NAA) |
| New Hampshire (NH) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| New Jersey (NJ) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| New Mexico (NM) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| New York (NY) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| North Carolina (NC) | NCEXTEND1 |
| North Dakota (ND) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Ohio (OH) | Alternate Assessment for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (AASCD) |
| Oklahoma (OK) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Oregon (OR) | Oregon Extended Assessment |
| Pennsylvania (PA) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Rhode Island (RI) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| South Carolina (SC) | South Carolina Alternate Assessment (SC-Alt) |
| South Dakota (SD) | Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA), South Dakota Science Alternate Assessment (SDSAA) |
| Tennessee (TN) | Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA),Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Alternate assessments (TCAP-Alt) |
| Texas (TX) | State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness – Alternate 2 (STAAR Alternate 2) |
| Utah (UT) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Vermont (VT) | Vermont Alternate Assessment (VTAA) |
| Virginia (VA) | Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) |
| Washington (WA) | WA-AIM Alternate Assessment |
| West Virginia (WV) | West Virginia Alternate Summative Assessment (WVASA) |
| Wisconsin (WI) | Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) |
| Wyoming (WY) | Wyoming Alternate Assessment (WY-Alt) |
Table C-1. Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS
| State | Has Disability or IEP | Significant Cognitive Disability, or Significantly Affected Cognitive and Adaptive Function | Alternate or Modified Curriculum Standards | Extensive Individualized Instruction and/or Supports | Cannot Show Learning on General Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | X | X | |
| AK | X | X | X | X | |
| AZ | X | X | X | X | |
| AR | X | X | X | X | X |
| CA | X | X | X | X | |
| CO | X | X | X | X | |
| CT | X | X | X | ||
| DE | X | X | X | X | |
| DC | X | X | X | X | |
| FL | X | X | X | X | |
| GA | X | X | X | X | |
| HI | X | X | X | X | |
| ID | X | X | X | X | |
| IL | X | X | X | X | |
| IN | X | X | X | X | |
| IA | X | X | X | X | |
| KS | X | X | X | X | |
| KY | X | X | X | ||
| LA | X | X | X | ||
| ME | X | X | X | X | |
| MD | X | X | X | X | |
| MA | X | X | X | X | X |
| MI | X | X | X | X | X |
| MN | X | X | X | X | |
| MS | X | X | X | ||
| MO | X | X | X | X | |
| MT | X | X | X | X | |
| NE | X | X | X | X | |
| NV | X | X | X | ||
| NH | X | X | X | ||
| NJ | X | X | X | X | |
| NM | X | X | X | ||
| NY | X | X | X | ||
| NC | X | X | X | X | |
| ND | X | X | X | ||
| OH | X | X | X | X | |
| OK | X | X | X* | X | |
| OR | X | X | X | X | |
| PA | X | X | X | X | |
| RI | X | X | X | X | |
| SC | X | X | X | X | |
| SD | X | X | X | X | |
| TN | X | X | X | X | |
| TX | X | X | X | X | |
| UT | X | X | X | X | |
| VT | X | X | X | X | |
| VA | X | X | X | X | |
| WA | X | X | X | X | |
| WV | X | X | X | X | |
| WI | X | X | X | X | |
| WY | X | X | X | X | |
| Total | 51 | 51 | 42 | 51 | 3 |
N=51
*Details and specifications are in Table C-3.
Table C-2. Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS, Continued
| State | Parent Informed | Reference to Standard Deviation on Test | Effects Post School Outcomes | Other* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | ||
| AK | X | |||
| AZ | X | |||
| AR | X | X | X | X |
| CA | X | |||
| CO | ||||
| CT | ||||
| DE | X | X | X | |
| DC | ||||
| FL | X | X | ||
| GA | X | |||
| HI | X | |||
| ID | X | |||
| IL | ||||
| IN | ||||
| IA | ||||
| KS | X | X | ||
| KY | X | X | ||
| LA | X | |||
| ME | ||||
| MD | ||||
| MA | X | |||
| MI | ||||
| MN | X | |||
| MS | X | |||
| MO | X | X | ||
| MT | ||||
| NE | X | |||
| NV | X | X | ||
| NH | X | |||
| NJ | X | |||
| NM | ||||
| NY | X | |||
| NC | X | X | ||
| ND | X | X | ||
| OH | ||||
| OK | X | |||
| OR | X | X | X | |
| PA | X | |||
| RI | X | |||
| SC | X | |||
| SD | ||||
| TN | X | |||
| TX | X | |||
| UT | ||||
| VT | X | X | ||
| VA | X | |||
| WA | ||||
| WV | X | |||
| WI | X | X | ||
| WY | X | |||
| Total | 17 | 2 | 7 | 27 |
N=51
*Details and specifications are in Table C-3.
Table C-3. Details and Specifications for Criteria for AA-AAAS Participation
| State | Details and Specifications |
|---|---|
| AL | Other: The IEP Team decisions regarding a student’s participation in the ACAP Alternate must be based on both current available data and consideration of historical evaluations and instructional data relevant to the student. |
| AR | Other: A student with the most significant cognitive disability is characterized by significantly below average cognitive functioning (IQ scores typically below 55 or 3 or more standard deviations below the mean) occurring with commensurate deficits in adaptive behavior that are frequently evident in early childhood. Augmentative communication devices are often necessary to communicate with others. |
| CO | Significant cognitive disability: The designation of “the most significant cognitive disability” is left to the professional judgment of the school psychologist and other professionals contributing to the body of evidence gathered during the evaluation and considered by the IEP Team. Generally, such students can be characterized as having intellectual functioning well below average (typically associated with cognitive measures indicating an IQ below 55, / 3.0 standard deviations or more below the mean) that exists concurrently with deficits in adaptive functioning. |
| DE | Other: Is eligibility being considered for participation in ALL content areas? |
| FL | Other:
▪ Enrollment in appropriate and aligned courses for two consecutive full-time equivalent reporting periods prior to the assessment. ▪ The student is receiving support through systematic, explicit and interactive small-group instruction focused on foundational skills. ▪ The student is receiving specially designed instruction per the requirements of this rule. ▪ Unless the student is a transfer student, the student must have been: ▫ Available and present for grade-level general education curriculum standards instruction for at least 70 percent of the school year prior to the assessment; ▫ Instructed by a certified teacher for at least 80 percent of the school year prior to the assessment. ▪ The assessment instrument used to measure the student’s global level of cognitive functioning was selected to limit the adverse impact of already-identified limitations and impairments (e.g., language acquisition, mode of communication, culture, hearing, vision, orthopedic functioning, hypersensitivities and distractibility). |
| GA | Other: Does the student require specialized supports to demonstrate age-appropriate adaptive behavior? |
| HI | Other: The student’s difficulty with the demands of the general academic curriculum is not due to social, cultural, or environmental factors; expectation of poor performance; or excessive absences. |
| ID | Other: The student’s course of study is primarily adaptive skills oriented, typically not measured by state or district assessments. |
| KS | Significant cognitive disability: The student has a most significant cognitive disability (defined as typically functioning 2-1/2 or more standard deviations below the mean). Other: Is the student’s inability to participate in the regular assessment primarily the result of a most significant cognitive disability and NOT excessive absences; visual or auditory disabilities; expected poor performance on general assessment; need for accommodations; or social, cultural, language or economic differences? |
| KY | Other: ARC reviewed current and longitudinal data across settings (age appropriate home, school, and community environments) in all academic areas AND adaptive behavior(s), to inform the ARC decision.
Did the ARC carefully consider (check as considered) each of these items:
▪ excessive or extended absences ▪ disability related to visual or auditory disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities, speech and language impairment ▪ native language, social, cultural, and economic differences, ▪ those identified as English Language Learners (ELL) ▪ pre-determined poor performance on the grade-level assessment ▪ the student displays disruptive behaviors or experiences emotional duress during testing ▪ administrator decision ▪ educational environment or instructional setting The ARCs decision for the student to participate in the KY Alternate Assessment is not primarily the result of any of the exclusions listed above. |
| LA | Other: The decision to include the student in an alternate assessment is not solely based on the following:
a. student’s educational placement; b. excessive or extended absences; c. disruptive behavior; d. English language proficiency; e. student’s reading or academic level; f. student’s disability according to Bulletin 1508; g. social, cultural, and/or economic differences; h. anticipated impact on school performance scores; i. administrative decision; j. expectation that the student will not perform well on the LEAP 2025 or other statewide assessments; or k. the student’s previous need for accommodation(s) to participate in general state or district-wide assessments. |
| MN | Other: The IEP team first considered the student’s ability to access the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA), with or without accommodations.
The IEP team documented, in the IEP, reasons the MCA would not be an appropriate measure of the student’s academic progress and how the student would participate in statewide testing. |
| MS | Other: The student’s inability to complete the standard academic curriculum is neither the result of excessive or extended absences nor is primarily the result of visual, auditory, or physical disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities or social, cultural, or economic differences. |
| MO | Other: Is the student’s inability to participate in the regular assessment primarily the result of the most significant cognitive disability and NOT excessive absences; visual or auditory disabilities; or social, cultural, language or economic differences? |
| NE | Other: The decision to participate in the Alternate Assessment is NOT BASED on: 1. Specific disability or label 2. Excessive or extended absence 3. Native language/social/cultural or economic differences 4. Educational environment or setting 5. Percent of time receiving special education 6. English Learner status 7. Low reading level 8. Disruptive behavior 9. Administration decision 10. Impact of student scores for accountability system 11. Expected poor performance on the general education assessment. |
| NV | Other: The IEP committee’s decision about the student’s participation in the NAA was NOT primarily based on any of the following: a disability category or label, poor attendance or extended absences, native language, social, cultural, or economic differences, academic and other services received, educational environment or instructional setting, percent of time receiving special education services, English Learner (EL) status, current or previous low academic achievement, or current or previous need for accommodations (e.g., assistive technology/AAC) to participate in general State or districtwide assessments. |
| NH | Other: Please review the list of Characteristics of Students Appropriately Served under Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards.
▪ Limited Communication: The student may have very limited vocabulary and language skills, or may be non-verbal. The student may use simple language structures to communicate and seldom acquires new communication skills through incidental learning. This does not include any student with “limited communication” who has no effective communication system in place or under active development; AND ▪ Very Low Levels of Academic Achievement: Performance in the subject matters of Reading, Writing, Mathematics, and Science is significantly below that of same-aged peers. This does not include students working just 1 or 2 grade levels below grade-level, or any student who has not had full opportunity to benefit from empirically sound instructional intervention. This also does not include any student who has, as documented in IEP team meeting notes, had a significant cognitive disability “ruled out” in order to identify the student as a child having a specific learning disability; AND ▪ Highly Specialized Instruction: The student generally requires systematic instruction with tasks broken into small steps. In addition, the student needs deliberate instruction to apply learned skills across multiple settings (e.g., school, home, work, and other settings); AND ▪ Ample Supports: The student requires individualized instructional, technological, or interpersonal supports to make progress in learning. The student requires accommodations to demonstrate proficiency of even the modified performance expectation levels described above, such as modeling and repeated demonstration, specially designed prompting procedures, and alternate or augmented communication systems. This does not include any student who needs ample support but has no clear evidence of significant cognitive disability. |
| NC | Other: The student must be enrolled in grades 3–8, 10, or 11, according to PowerSchool. Only those students enrolled in 11th grade for the first time are required to take the NCEXTEND1 alternate assessment at grade 11.
Is the student’s inability to participate in the regular assessment primarily the result of the extent of the significant cognitive disability and NOT the result of excessive absences, visual or auditory processing, social, cultural, language or economic difference? |
| ND | Other:
▪ The student requires information to be obtained primarily through methods other than reading due to limited reading ability. ▪ The student requires alternate methods to express or share oral or written ideas and information. |
| OK | Alternate or Modified Curriculum Standards: Does the student’s IEP require alternate achievement standards in ALL content areas? Other: Does the IEP team feel extensive family/community supports will be a lifelong requirement, regardless of modifications, accommodations or adaptations implemented in the student’s program? |
| OR | Other: The significant cognitive disability impacts the student’s access to the general education curriculum and requires individualized instruction.
▪ The student requires a highly specialized educational program with intensive and on-going supports, modifications, accommodations and/or adaptations to allow access to the general education curriculum. AND/OR ▪ The student consistently requires individualized instruction in core academic and functional life skills at a substantially low level relative to other peers with disabilities. AND/OR ▪ The student requires alternate methods or significant supports to communicate. The student’s inability to participate in the state’s general assessment is primarily the result of the significant cognitive disability and NOT excessive absences; other disabilities; or social, cultural, language or economic differences. |
| PA | Other: PASA Criteria outlined in the PaTTAN - Annotated Individualized Education Program with COVID-19 Guidance: The IEP team must review each of Pennsylvania’s six eligibility criteria to determine participation in the PASA. The IEP team must answer “YES” to ALL six criteria in order for the student to participate in the PASA. If the answer is “NO” to any of the questions, the student must participate in the PSSA/Keystones with or without accommodations, as determined appropriate by the IEP team. 1. Will the student be in grade 3,4,5,6,7,8, or 11 by September 1st of the school year during which the IEP will be operative? 2. Does the student have significant cognitive disabilities? Pennsylvania defines significant cognitive disabilities as pervasive and global in nature, affecting student learning in all academic content areas, as well as adaptive behaviors and functional skills across life domains. 3. Does the student require intensive, direct, and repeated instruction in order to learn and generalize academic, functional, and adaptive behavior skills across multiple settings? 4. Does the student require extensive adaptations and support in order to perform and/or participate meaningfully and productively in the everyday life activities of integrated school, home, community, and work environments? 5. Does the student require substantial modifications to the general education curriculum? 6. Does the student’s participation in the general education curriculum differ substantially in form and/or substance from that of most other students? Students found eligible to take the PASA must have measurable annual goals AND short-term objectives reflected in the IEP. |
| SC | Other: Additional Considerations: The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT based on a specific categorical label or educational placement. The student’s inability to achieve state grade-level achievement expectations is NOT the result of excessive or extended absences or social, cultural, or economic differences. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT due to the fact that the student has English as a second language. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is an IEP team decision and is NOT being made for administrative purposes and/or in anticipation of impact on school or district accountability results. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT based solely on the fact that the student’s instructional reading level is below the grade level of the general assessment. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT based on the fact that the student is expected to perform poorly on the general assessment. |
| TN | Other: Additional Considerations: Check each statement if agree:
The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT based on a specific categorical label or educational placement. The student’s inability to achieve state grade-level achievement expectations is NOT the result of excessive or extended absences or social, cultural, or economic differences. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT due to the fact that the student has English as a second language. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is an IEP team decision and is NOT being made for administrative purposes and/or in anticipation of impact on school or district accountability results. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT based solely on the fact that the student’s instructional reading level is below the grade level of the general assessment. The decision for this student to participate in the alternate assessment is NOT based on the fact that the student is expected to perform poorly on the general assessment. |
| TX | Other: Is the STAAR Alternate 2 assessment determination based on the student’s significant cognitive disability and NOT on any other factors? |
| VT | Other: The IEP team has identified the need for an alternate assessment and the student’s parents or guardians have been notified that the student will be assessed against alternate academic achievement standards. |
| VA | Other: Is the student working toward educational goals other than those prescribed for a Standard Diploma, or Advanced Studies Diploma? |
| WV | Other: Does the learner require individualized accommodations, access features and materials beyond those provided by Universal Accommodations as outlined in most recent Guidelines for Participation in WV State Assessments? (Only consider if student is currently in an assessed grade.) |
N=51
Table D-1. Factors Not to be Used as Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS
| State | Social, Cultural, Linguistic, or Economic Factors | Disability Label, Placement, or Services | Excess-ive Absences | Need for Accomm- odations |
Foreseen Emotional Distress | Foreseen Disruptive Behavior | Percentage of Time Receiving Special Education Services |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| AK | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| AZ | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| AR | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| CA | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| CO | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| CT | |||||||
| DE | X | X | X | X | |||
| DC | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| FL | |||||||
| GA | X | X | X | X | |||
| HI | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| ID | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| IL | X | X | X | ||||
| IN | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| IA | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| KS | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| KY | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| LA | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| ME | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| MD | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| MA | X | X | |||||
| MI | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| MN | X | X | |||||
| MS | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| MO | X | X | |||||
| MT | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| NE | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| NV | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| NH | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| NJ | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| NM | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| NY | X | X | X | X | |||
| NC | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| ND | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| OH | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| OK | X | X | X | X | |||
| OR | X | X | |||||
| PA | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| RI | X | X | X | ||||
| SC | X | X | X | ||||
| SD | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| TN | X | X | X | ||||
| TX | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| UT | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| VT | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| VA | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| WA | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| WV | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| WI | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| WY | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Total | 46 | 46 | 46 | 32 | 36 | 38 | 32 |
N = 51
Table D-2. Factors Not to be Used as Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS, Continued
| State | Low Reading or Achieve-ment Level | Poor Perfor-mance or Impact on Account-ability System | Administr-ator Decision | Other Disabilities (e.g., SLD) | English Learner Status | IQ Scores Alone | Other* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | X | X | |||
| AK | X | X | X | X | |||
| AZ | X | X | X | X | |||
| AR | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| CA | X | X | X | X | |||
| CO | X | X | X | X | |||
| CT | |||||||
| DE | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| DC | X | X | X | X | |||
| FL | X | X | X | ||||
| GA | |||||||
| HI | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| ID | X | X | X | X | |||
| IL | X | X | X | X | |||
| IN | X | X | X | X | |||
| IA | X | X | X | X | |||
| KS | X | X | X | X | |||
| KY | X | X | X* | X | |||
| LA | X | X | X | X | |||
| ME | X | X | X | X | |||
| MD | X | X | X | X | |||
| MA | X | X | X | ||||
| MI | X | X | X* | ||||
| MN | X | X | |||||
| MS | X | X | X | X | |||
| MO | X* | ||||||
| MT | X | X | X | X | |||
| NE | X | X | X | X | |||
| NV | X | X | |||||
| NH | X | X | X | X | |||
| NJ | X | X | X | ||||
| NM | X | X | X | X | |||
| NY | X | ||||||
| NC | X | X | X | X | |||
| ND | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| OH | X | X | X | X | |||
| OK | X | X | |||||
| OR | X | X | X | X | |||
| PA | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| RI | X | X | X | X | |||
| SC | X | X | X | X | |||
| SD | X | X | X | X | |||
| TN | X | X | X | X | |||
| TX | X | X | |||||
| UT | X | X | X | X | |||
| VT | X | X | X | X | |||
| VA | X | X | X | X* | X | X | |
| WA | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| WV | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| WI | X | X | X | X | |||
| WY | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Total | 36 | 48 | 40 | 8 | 42 | 3 | 11 |
N=51
*Details and specifications are in Table D-3.
Table D-3. Details and Specifications for Criteria for AA-AAAS Participation
| State | Details and Specifications |
|---|---|
| DE | Other: Existence of an IEP. |
| FL | Other: The student does not meets the definition as having a most significant cognitive disability as defined by Rule 6A-1.0943, F.A.C., or by the submitted and approved school district-determined procedure as documented in a current individual educational plan. The student is identified only as a student eligible for services as a student who is deaf or hard of hearing or has a visual impairment, a dual sensory impairment, an emotional or behavioral disability, a language impairment, a speech impairment, or an orthopedic impairment. The student scored at level 2 or above on a previous statewide, general education curriculum standardized assessment administered pursuant to Sections 1008.22(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes, unless there is medical documentation that the student experienced a traumatic brain injury or other health-related complication subsequent to the administration of that assessment that led to the student having the most significantly below-average global cognitive impairment. |
| HI | Other: Poor academic preparation; three or more grade levels below peers. Augmentative assistive communication. Instructional setting. General assessment is “too hard.” Concern about meeting 1% Cap. |
| IL | Other: The student has an IEP. |
| KY | Other Disabilities: Have a significant cognitive disability that is not primarily the result of disability related to visual or auditory disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities, speech and language impairment. |
| MA | Other: Lack of standards-based instruction. Participation in the MCAS-Alt the previous year. Low income, child in foster care, or interrupted formal education. |
| MI | Other Disabilities: MI-Access is not designed for most students whose primary disability is a specific learning disability, speech language impairment, emotional impairment or other health impairment. |
| MN | Other: Participation in a separate, specialized curriculum. |
| MO | Other Disabilities: Not the result of visual or auditory disabilities. |
| OR | Other: Mild disability. |
| RI | Other: Variety of services a student receives. Behavior issues, including test anxiety. |
| VA | Other Disabilities: Visual or auditory disabilities
Other: A belief that the student will not pass the SOL assessment with or without modifications. |
| WA | Other Disabilities: Disability related to visual or auditory disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities, or speech and language impairment
Other: Lack of access to quality instruction in core standards. |
| WY | Other: Administration and/or parental decision. The decision shall not be based on graduation path (i.e., diploma or certificate of completion). |
Table E-1. Formats of Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessment
| State | Description/Text | Flow Chart/ Decision Tree |
Checklist | Othera |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X (Rubric) | ||
| AK | X | X | ||
| AZ | X | X | X | X (PowerPoint slides) |
| AR | X | X | X | |
| CA | X | X | ||
| CO | X | X | X | |
| CT | X | X | X (Eligibility form) | |
| DE | X | X | X (Worksheet) | |
| DC | X | X | ||
| FL | X | |||
| GA | X | X | X (PowerPoint slides) | |
| HI | X | X | X | X (Case studies; list of contributing factors and red flags) |
| ID | X | X | ||
| IL | X | X | ||
| IN | X | X | ||
| IA | X | X | ||
| KS | X | X | X | X (Worksheet; case examples) |
| KY | X | X (Documentation form) | ||
| LA | X | X | X (PowerPoint slides; eligibility form) |
|
| ME | X | X | X (PowerPoint training slides) |
|
| MD | X | X | X | |
| MA | X | X | X (PowerPoint training slides) |
|
| MI | X | X (List of factors to be considered and not to be considered; case studies; interactive tool) |
||
| MN | X | X | ||
| MS | X | X | ||
| MO | X | X | X | |
| MT | X | X | ||
| NE | X | X | X | |
| NV | X | X | ||
| NH | X | X | ||
| NJ | X | X | ||
| NM | X | X | ||
| NY | X | X | X | |
| NC | X | X | ||
| ND | X | X | ||
| OH | X | X | X | |
| OK | X | X | ||
| OR | X | X | X | |
| PA | X | X | ||
| RI | X | X | ||
| SC | X | X | X (Worksheet) | |
| SD | X | X | X (Student examples) | |
| TN | X | X | X (Rubric) | |
| TX | X | X | ||
| UT | X | X | ||
| VT | X | X | ||
| VA | X | X | ||
| WA | X | X | X (PowerPoint) | |
| WV | X | X | X (Rubric) | |
| WI | X | X | X | X |
| WY | X | X | X | |
| Total | 47 | 26 | 38 | 18 |
N=51
a See Table E-2 for links to “Other” resources.
Table E-2. State Alternate Assessment Resources for “Other” Format Category
| State | “Other” Resource Links |
|---|---|
| AL | https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ACAP-Alternate-Decision- Making-Tool-Revison-3-Fillable.pdf |
| AZ | https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5e138e2003e2b31afcf54b19 |
| CT | https://ct.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/connecticut/pdf/2020/ct- alternate-assessment-eligibility-form.pdf |
| DE | https://www.doe.k12.de.us/cms/lib/DE01922744/Centricity/Domain/527/Appendix%20 B-3%20DeSSA-Alt%20Decision%20Making%20Tool.pdf |
| GA | https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Documents/ GAA_2/Training/GAA%202.0%20Overview%20and%20Eligibility_2021_Final.pptx |
| HI | https://hsa-alt.alohahsap.org/-/media/project/client-portals/hawaii-alt/pdf/2021/factors-and- red-flags-on-the-road-to-hsa-alt-student-identification-2021-2022.pdf https://hsa-alt.alohahsap.org/-/media/project/client-portals/hawaii-alt/pdf/2021/hsa_alt_ participation_guidelines_examples_2021-2022.pdf |
| KS | https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/DLM/DLM-IEPTeamResource-MakingDecisions.pdf
https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/DLM/DLM-Rubric.pdf |
| KY | https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/instresources/Documents/KY_Alternate_ Assessment_Participation_Guidelines_Documentation_Form.pdf |
| LA | https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/students-with-disabilities/bulletin- 1530-alternate-assessment-webinar.pdf?sfvrsn=67259e1f_10 https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/assessment/additional-documentation -1-c-guidance-final_7-29-2019_.pdf?sfvrsn=32509c1f_4 |
| ME | https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/Maine%20MSAA%20 Training%20Presentation%20Slides.pdf |
| MA | https://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/essa/OnePercent.pptx |
| MI | https://mdoe.state.mi.us/mdedocuments/AssessmentSelectionGuidelinesTraining/ page759. html https://mdoe.state.mi.us/MDEDocuments/InteractiveDecision-MakingTool/index. html https://www.michigan.gov/mde/-/media/Project/Websites/mde/Year/2020/03/05/Should _My_Student_Take_the_Alternate_Assessment.pdf?rev=0f97fd31411a4382b3319eebd39 2b9cd&hash=98E11500F8390E4C3E0919350F0D47F8 |
| SC | https://sc-alt.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/south-carolina/pdf/ participation-guidance-for-iep-teams-2022.pdf |
| SD | https://doe.sd.gov/assessment/documents/Alt-Guidelines-20.pdf |
| TN | https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/testing/alt/Alt%20Assessment%20 file%20review%20rubric.docx |
| WA | https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/assessment/wa-aim/pubdocs/ 1percentparticipationcappresentation.pptx |
| WV | https://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/Policy2520.16Rubricwithsignitures.pdf |
| WI | https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/pdf/mscd-guide-to-determining-students- with-mscd.pdf |
Example 1: Delaware
Example 2: Montana
Example 3: South Dakota
Example 4: West Virginia
Table G-1. Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities
| State | Definition and Source |
|---|---|
| AL | In Alabama, the definition of a student with the most significant cognitive disability is a student with an intelligence quotient (IQ) of 55 or below, which significantly impacts intellectual functioning and that exists concurrently with deficits in adaptive functioning. For students with an IQ measured in the 55-70 range, additional factors related to the severity and impact of the disability must be taken into account. The definition of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities references students who require intensive or extensive levels of direct support that is not of a temporary or transient nature. ACAP Alternate Participation Decision-Making Tool (p. 1) Source: https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ACAP-Alternate-Decision-Making-Tool-Revison-3-Fillable.pdf |
| AK | Review of student records indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life.
Participation Guidelines (p. 28) Source: https://education.alaska.gov/TLS/Assessments/accommodations/ParticipationGuidelines.pdf |
| AZ | A student with a significant cognitive disability is one who has records that indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as actions essential for an individual to live independently and to function safely in daily life. Having a significant cognitive disability is not determined by an IQ test score, but rather a holistic understanding of a student.
Guidance for IEP Teams on Participation Decisions for the Multi-State Alternate Assessment (p. 4) Source: https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2021/02/MSAA%20Participation%20Guidance%20June%202021%20AZ%20Final.pdf |
| AR | A student with the most significant cognitive disability is characterized by significantly below average cognitive functioning (IQ scores typically below 55 or 3 or more standard deviations below the mean) occurring with commensurate deficits in adaptive behavior that are frequently evident in early childhood. Further, the cognitive disability must significantly impact the child’s performance and ability to generalize learning across settings (educational, home, community). Substantial modifications to the general education curriculum are required. Augmentative communication devices are often necessary to communicate with others. These students require substantial supports for all activities of daily living including meal preparation, dressing, grooming, and personal hygiene. Their personal safety is dependent upon constant supervision and will be a concern throughout their lifetime. They will likely require supported or assisted living which may involve a guardian when the student turns 18. Having a significant cognitive disability is not determined by an IQ test score, but rather a holistic understanding of a student. For example, all students with an intellectual disability do not automatically meet the criteria for the alternate assessment.)
Arkansas Alternate Assessment Participation Manual (p. 5) Source: https://adesandbox.arkansas.gov/file?v=ZTkzNzBmMzE0N2NiMzM0MzFhNzI3ODg4OTJhYThlNTM.pdf&option=view |
| CA | 1. Review of the student’s school records indicates a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior essential for a person to live independently and to function safely in daily life. Having a significant cognitive disability is not determined by an IQ test score; rather, a holistic understanding of the student is required. Students identified with a specific learning disability cannot also be identified as cognitively impaired, as the determination of a specific learning disability rules out cognitive impairment. IEP teams should be careful to consider the following: a. Conceptual skills—language and literacy; money, time, and number concepts; and self-direction b. Social skills—interpersonal skills, social responsibility, self-esteem, gullibility, naïveté (i.e., wariness), social problem solving, and the ability to follow rules/obey laws and to avoid being victimized c. Practical skills—activities of daily living (personal care), occupational skills, health care, travel/transportation, schedules/routines, safety, use of money, use of the telephone. As part of the IEP team decision, the team also should consider the following: • Community environment typical of the student’s peers and culture • Linguistic diversity • Cultural differences in the way people communicate, move, and behave Source: https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/ca/caaiepteamrev.asp |
| CO | Since the impact of having an intellectual or cognitive disability varies considerably, just as the range of abilities varies considerably among all people, the designation of “the most significant cognitive disability” is left to the professional judgment of the school psychologist and other professionals contributing to the body of evidence gathered during the evaluation and considered by the IEP Team. Generally, such students can be characterized as having intellectual functioning well below average (typically associated with cognitive measures indicating an IQ below 55, / 3.0 standard deviations or more below the mean) that exists concurrently with deficits in adaptive functioning. This reference is only offered to help distinguish between students who meet eligibility criteria to receive special education services as a student with an Intellectual Disability and students with the most significant cognitive disability. The words “typically associated with IQ below 55” allow for some district/school flexibility; it is not intended to be an absolute requirement. For students with IQ measured in the 55-70 range, additional factors related to the severity and impact of the disability must be taken into account when considering the selection of alternate academic achievement standards and assessment. Neither the special education disability category nor a given standardized IQ score can be the sole factor considered when determining instructional standards and participation in assessment. In other words, the disability category of Intellectual Disability itself or an IQ score below 70 does not automatically qualify the student to receive instruction based on alternate standards or to take an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards. Some disability categories have eligibility criteria that may inherently exclude significant cognitive disability, (Serious Emotional Disability, Specific Learning Disability, or Speech or Language Impairment for example.)
Participation Guidelines: Alternate Academic Achievement Standards for Instruction and Alternate Assessment (pp. 1-2) Source: https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/altstandsassessparticipationguidelines |
| CT | Students with a significant cognitive disability eligible for partition in the Alternate Assessment System are identified as individuals who:
• Have an intellectual impairment, as documented through an assessment of cognitive functioning that places the individual significantly below age level expectations; • Demonstrate adaptive behavior skills (i.e., those conceptual, social and practical skills necessary to meet the common demands of everyday life) that is well below age level expectations; and • Require intensive, repeated individualized instruction and use substantially adapted materials, assistive technology, and individualized methods of accessing information to acquire, maintain, demonstrate, and transfer skills across multiple settings. Assessment Guidelines (pp. 13-14) Source: https://ct.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/connecticut/pdf/2019/csde-assessment-guidelines.pdf |
| DE | A student with a significant cognitive disability is one whose disability pervasively impacts his/her intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Significant deficits in intellectual functioning result in the student requiring extensive direct instruction and substantial supports in order to make measurable educational gains. Significant deficits in adaptive behavior often result in the student being unable to develop the skills needed to live independently or to function safely in their daily life at home, in school and in the community. As a result, the student is learning academic content that is reduced in depth, breadth, and complexity.
Source: https://www.doe.k12.de.us/Page/3812 |
| DC | Review of student records indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life.
Guidance for IEP Teams on Participation Decisions for the DC Alternate Assessment in English Language Arts and Mathematics (p. 2) Source: https://osse.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/osse/service_content/attachments/DC%20NCSC%20Participation%20Guidance%20(9.28.15).pdf |
| FL | “Most significant cognitive disability” means a global cognitive impairment that adversely impacts multiple areas of functioning across many settings and is a result of a congenital, acquired or traumatic brain injury or syndrome and is verified by either:
1. A statistically significant below average global cognitive score that falls within the first percentile rank (i.e., a standard, full-scale score of sixty-seven (67) or under); or 2. In the extraordinary circumstance when a global, full-scale intelligent quotient score is unattainable, a school district-determined procedure that has been approved by the Florida Department of Education under paragraph (5)(e) of this rule. Rule: 6A-1.0943 (p. 1) Source: https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readFile.asp?sid=0&tid=24688942&type=1&file=6A-1.0943.doc |
| GA | Students with significant intellectual disabilities or intellectual disabilities concurrent with motor, sensory or emotional/behavioral disabilities who require substantial adaptations and support to access the general curriculum and require additional instruction focused on relevant life skills and participate in the Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA).
GAA 2.0 Overview and Eligibility (slide 10) Source: https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Documents/GAA_2/Training/GAA%202.0%20Overview%20and%20Eligibility_2021_Final.pptx |
| HI | A student who is appropriately identified to be assessed by the HSA-Alt is expected to have significantly accommodated receptive and expressive communication systems (e.g., supplemented by pictures/symbols, assistive technology devices, etc.), expectations for performances that are significantly modified by reductions in difficulty and/or complexity from grade-level expectations, and materials which have been significantly modified in order to provide meaningful access to the general curriculum. These accommodations/modifications make how the student communicates, responds to the environment, and learns look significantly different from those same characteristics of peers without disabilities. An IQ score is not an acceptable criterion to determine if a student should participate in the HSA-Alt. The HSA-Alt has been developed solely for use by students who would be expected to score significantly lower than their peers without disabilities on standardized tests of knowledge and cognition (or may not achieve a valid score at all).
IEP Rubric (p. 2) Source: https://hsa-alt.alohahsap.org/-/media/project/client-portals/hawaii-alt/pdf/2021/hsa-alt-iep-rubric_2021-2022.pdf |
| ID | A designation given to a small number of students with disabilities for the purposes of their participation in AAs. Having a significant cognitive impairment is not solely determined by an IQ test score, nor based on a specific disability category, but rather a complete understanding of the complex needs of a student. Students with significant cognitive impairments have a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact their adaptive skills and intellectual functioning. These students have adaptive skills well below average in two or more skill areas and intellectual functioning well below average (typically associated with an IQ below 55) (2018 Idaho Special Education Manual, p. xiii).
Idaho Alternate Assessment Participation Criteria (p. 1) Source: https://www.sde.idaho.gov/assessment/sped/files/participation/IDAA-Participation-Criteria-July-2019.pdf |
| IL | The alternate assessment is intended for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. These students have intellectual functioning well below average (typically associated with an IQ below 55) that exists concurrently with impairments or deficits in adaptive functioning (i.e. communications, self-care, home living, social/interpersonal skills, use of community resources, self-directions, functional academic skills, work leisure, health and safety). The reference to “typically associated with an IQ of below 55” is to help distinguish between students with cognitive disabilities and significant cognitive disabilities from students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This means that many students with cognitive disabilities will not qualify for the DLM Alternate Assessment. By default, they must take our regular state assessment with or without accommodations. The inclusion of the words “typically associated with” allows for some district/school flexibility. It is by no means an absolute requirement.
Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Participation Guidance (p. 1) Source: https://www.isbe.net/Documents/dlm-partic-gdlns.pdf |
| IN | The term “most significant intellectual disabilities” refers to students participating in special education services within one or more of the existing categories of disability (e.g., intellectual disability, autism, multiple disabilities) with deficits in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as behavior that is essential for someone to live independently and function safely in daily life. The learning characteristics of a student with the “most significant intellectual disabilities” may include:
• a severe intellectual disability that impacts learning, memory, judgment, and processing which impacts learning acquisition; • performing substantially below grade level expectations on academic content standards for the age-appropriate grade, even with the use of accommodations; • requiring extensive specially designed and individualized instruction or substantial supports to achieve measurable gains in the grade-and age-appropriate curriculum; or • requiring more time for processing, opportunities to generalize language, time to learn and process language, and alternate ways to communicate including augmentative and alternative communication to supplement or replace speech or writing. Assessment Participation: Frequently Asked Questions (p. 1) https://www.in.gov/doe/files/Alternate-Assessment-Participation-FAQ-21-22.pdf |
| IA* | |
| KS | Review of student records indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning. Typically functioning 2 ½ or more Standard Deviations (SD) below the mean.
Dynamic Learning Maps Participation Guidelines for Kansas (p. 2) Source: https://www.ksde.org/Portals/0/SES/DLM/DLM-ParticipationGuidelines.pdf |
| KY | As outlined in the Kentucky Alternate Assessment Participation Guidelines Documentation form, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities:
• Meet eligibility criterion in one or more of the existing categories of disabilities under IDEA (e.g., intellectual disabilities, autism, multiple disabilities), • Have cognitive and adaptive behavior functioning preventing them from attaining grade level achievement standards, even with program modifications and accommodations, • Require extensive individual instruction across multiple settings to access and make progress in the Kentucky Academic Standards, and to maintain, generalize and demonstrate learning, • Have a significant cognitive disability that is not primarily the result of: ◦ excessive or extended absences ◦ disability related to visual or auditory disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities, speech and language impairment ◦ native language, social, cultural, and economic differences, ◦ those identified as English Learners (EL) ◦ pre-determined poor performance on the grade-level assessment ◦ the student displays disruptive behaviors or experiences emotional duress during testing ◦ administrator decision ◦ educational environment or instructional setting Kentucky Alternate Assessment Participation Guidelines Documentation Form (p. 7) Source: https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/instresources/Documents/KY_Alternate_Assessment_Participation_Guidelines_Documentation_Form.pdf |
| LA | Does the student have a significant cognitive disability? Demonstrated in ONE of the following ways:
a. Student has not completed 5th grade and is functioning 3 or more standard deviations below the mean in cognitive functioning; b. Student has completed 5th grade and is functioning 2.3 or more standard deviations below the mean in cognitive functioning; OR c. Student has completed 5th grade and is functioning between 2.0 and 2.29 standard deviations below the mean in cognitive functioning and with deficits in adaptive behavior supported by empirical evidence the alternate assessment is appropriate. LEAP Connect Criteria Flowchart Source: https://www.louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/assessment/leap-connect-criteria-flowchart-(7th-grade-or-below).pdf?sfvrsn=d4819c1f_11 |
| ME | Review of student records indicates a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly affect intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life.
Maine’s Alternate Assessment Participation Guidelines Source: https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/MaineAlt.guidelines-2017.pdf |
| MD | The student has a “significant cognitive disability.” A review of student records indicates a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as a collection of behaviors, including conceptual, social, interpersonal, and practical skills, essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life. A significant cognitive disability is pervasive and affects learning across all content areas, independent functioning, community living, leisure, and vocational activities. Having a significant cognitive disability is not determined by just an IQ score, but rather a holistic understanding of a student. The term “significant cognitive disability” is a designation given to a small number of Maryland students with disabilities for purposes of their participation in the statewide assessment program and instruction. Students eligible to be assessed and/or instructed based on alternate academic achievement standards may be from any of the disability categories listed in the IDEA. 34 CFR 200.1(f)(2).
Guidance for IEP Teams: Participation Decisions for the Alternate Assessments and Instruction Using Alternate Standards Source: https://dynamiclearningmaps.org/sites/default/files/documents/StateBonusItems/DEISESAltAssessmentParticipationGuidance_04-2019.pdf |
| MA* | |
| MI | Students with significant cognitive disabilities, for the purpose of determining instructional targets and state assessment selection, have a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behaviors are essential to live independently and to function safely in daily life. When adaptive behaviors are significantly impacted, the individual is unlikely to develop the skills necessary to live independently and function safely in daily life. Students with significant cognitive disabilities are supported with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the instruction is based on Michigan’s alternate content standards in English language arts (ELA), mathematics, science and/ or social studies. Significant cognitive disabilities impact students both in and out of the classroom and across multiple life domains, including academic domains.
Should My Student Take the Alternate Assessment? Source: https://www.michigan.gov/mde/- /media/Project/Websites/mde/Year/2020/03/05/Should_My_Student_Take_the_Alternate_Assessment.pdf?rev=0f97fd31411a 4382b3319eebd392b9cd&hash=98E11500F8390E4C3E0919350F0D47F8 |
| MN* | |
| MS | For a student to be classified as having a Significant Cognitive Disability (SCD), all of the following must be true: A. The student demonstrates significant cognitive deficits and poor adaptive skill levels (as determined by that student’s comprehensive assessment) that prevent participation in the standard academic curriculum or achievement of the academic content standards, even with accommodations. B. The student requires extensive direct instruction in both academic and functional skills in multiple settings to accomplish the application and transfer of those skills. C. The student’s inability to complete the standard academic curriculum is not the result of excessive or extended absences or primarily the result of visual, auditory, or physical disabilities; emotional-behavioral disabilities; specific learning disabilities; or social, cultural, or economic differences.
A Family Guide to Special Education Services Source: https://www.mdek12.org/sites/default/files/Offices/MDE/OA/OSA/MAAP-A/14.web.family_sped_guide_significant_cognitive_disability.pdf |
| MO* | |
| MT | Review of student records indicates a disability[ies] that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Note: Adaptive behavior is defined as essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life.
How do we know that a student has a “significant cognitive disability”? The OPI does not define a “significant cognitive disability” in terms of a “cut off” IQ score. Most students with significant cognitive disabilities have intellectual disabilities but not all. Not all students with these disabilities are considered to have a “significant cognitive disability.” A significant cognitive disability will be pervasive, affecting student learning across content areas and in social and community settings. Verifiable evidence will demonstrate the impact of the significant cognitive disability in all aspects of the student’s life [Appendix A]. Determinations for student participation in state assessments must be data-centered and made individually for each student by the IEP team. Alternate Assessments are designed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Alternate Assessment Eligibility Guidelines Source: https://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20Files/Statewide%20Testing/Participation/Alternate%20Assessment%20Eligibility%20Guidelines.pdf |
| NE | The term “significant cognitive disability” is not a separate category of disability. It is a designation given to a small number of students with disabilities for purposes of their participation in the statewide student alternate assessment program who are (1) within one or more of the existing categories of disability under the IDEA and (2) whose cognitive impairments may prevent them from attaining grade-level achievement standards, even with systematic instruction. For a student to be determined as having a most significant cognitive disability for the purpose of participation in the alternate assessment system, the IEP team must consider all of the following guidelines when determining the appropriateness of a curriculum based on Nebraska College and Career Ready Academic Standards with Extended Indicators and the use of the Nebraska Student-Centered Assessment System - Alternate Assessment. (NSCAS – AA) • The student requires extensive, pervasive, and frequent supports in order to acquire, maintain, and demonstrate performance of knowledge and skills. • The student’s cognitive functioning is significantly below age expectations and has an impact on his/her ability to function in multiple environments (school, home and community). • The student’s demonstrated cognitive ability and adaptive functioning prevent completion of the general academic curriculum, even with appropriately designed and implemented modifications and accommodations. (Adaptive behavior is defined as essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life.) • The student’s curriculum and instruction is aligned to the Nebraska College and Career Ready Academic Standards with Extended Indicators. • The student may have accompanying communication, motor, sensory, or other impairments.
Most Significant Cognitive Disability Definition Source: https://www.education.ne.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Most-Significant-Cognitive-Disability-Definition.pdf |
| NV | Does the student demonstrate cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior that limit full participation in the general education curriculum and state-wide assessments even with supplementary aids, accommodations, and modifications? ESSA (2015) defines alternate assessments as being appropriate for students with “the most significant cognitive disabilities.” “The most significant cognitive disabilities” is not a separate eligibility category under IDEA, so students with the most significant cognitive disabilities will be eligible for services under the IDEA in other eligibility categories. “Data confirm that most students with SCD are in the categories of intellectual disability, autism, and multiple disabilities” (NCEO, 2017, p. 3). Regardless of the student’s eligibility category, when IEP committees determine that the student is appropriately assessed with the NAA, the committee is affirming that the student is a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Question #2 is designed to assist IEP committees to identify students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. IEP committees will examine the extent to which both the student’s cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior limit the student’s full participation in the general education curriculum and state-wide assessments even with supplementary aids, accommodations, and modifications. Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 388.015 defines adaptive skills as including communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, and leisure and work. Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities typically have deficits in two or more of these adaptive skill areas. Under NAC 388.360, a validated adaptive behavior scale must be used to assess a student’s adaptive skills. Examples include the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System. Evidence of deficits in adaptive skills and a corresponding cognitive impairment must be documented in the student’s file for an IEP committee to answer “YES” to Question #2. Low academic performance alone, without corresponding cognitive and adaptive skill deficits, is insufficient to determine that a student should be assessed on the NAA. In addition to identifying cognitive and adaptive skill deficits, the IEP committee must also consider the extent to which those deficits limit full participation in the general curriculum.
Nevada Alternate Assessment: Student Participation Guidance Source: https://doe.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/ndedoenvgov/content/Inclusive_Education/Documents/NAAQuestionGuide.pdf |
| NH | In order to define a student as having a most significant cognitive disability, the IEP team must review student records and agree:
• The student is typically characterized as functioning at least two and a half to three standard deviations below the mean in both adaptive behavior and cognitive functioning; and • The student performs substantially below grade level expectations (this does NOT include students working 1- 2 grade levels below their designated grade) on the academic content standards for the grade in which they are enrolled, even with the use of adaptations and accommodations; and • There is documented evidence that the student requires extensive, direct individualized instruction and substantial supports to achieve measurable gains, across all content areas and settings. Accommodations and Alternate Assessment Decision Making Worksheet: Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessments Source: https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/files/inline-documents/decisionmakingworksheetassessment.pdf |
| NJ | The student’s general level of intellectual functioning is significantly below the grade level expectations for his or her same-aged peers and the student requires substantial modifications to the grade level curriculum; and the student requires more intensive direct instruction than his or her peers to acquire knowledge and skills in the grade level curriculum; and the student requires more extensive systems of support in order to participate in the grade level curriculum.
Assessment Coordinator Training Source: https://dynamiclearningmaps.org/sites/default/files/documents/StateBonusItems/NJ_DLM_AssessmentCoordinatorTrainingModule.pdf |
| NM | A student who: • requires substantial modifications, adaptations, or supports to meaningfully access the grade-level content; • requires intensive individualized instruction in order to acquire and generalize knowledge; and • is unable to demonstrate achievement of academic content standards on the general education achievement test, even with accommodations.
Alternate Assessment Participation FAQ Source: https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Alt-Assessment-FAQ-2021-2022.pdf |
| NY | “Students with severe disabilities” refers to students who have limited cognitive abilities combined with behavioral and/or physical limitations and who require highly specialized education and/or social, psychological, and medical services in order to maximize their full potential for useful and meaningful participation in society and for self-fulfillment. Students with severe disabilities may experience severe speech, language, and/or perceptual-cognitive impairments and challenging behaviors that interfere with learning and socialization opportunities. These students may also have extremely fragile physiological conditions and may require personal care, physical/verbal supports, and assistive technology devices.
Eligibility and Participation Criteria – NYSAA Source: http://www.nysed.gov/common/nysed/files/programs/state-assessment/8-eligibilityb-19.pdf |
| NC | The student must have a significant cognitive disability.
• The student’s disability significantly impacts cognitive functioning and adaptive behaviors, defined as those skills which are essential for someone to live and function independently. • The student requires extensive and repeated individualized instruction and support to make meaningful gains. • The student uses substantially adapted materials and individualized methods of accessing information in alternative ways. NCEXTEND1 Eligibility Criteria Source: https://www.dpi.nc.gov/media/13314/open |
| ND | As defined by the U.S. Department of Education, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have one or more disabilities that especially affect intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviors. When adaptive behaviors are significantly affected, the individual is unlikely to develop the skills needed to live independently and to function safely in daily life. The DLM alternate assessment is designed for students for whom general education assessments are not appropriate, even with accessibility supports. Students taking the DLM alternate assessment require extensive, direct instruction and substantial supports to achieve measurable gains. These students learn academic content aligned to grade-level content standards but at reduced depth, breadth, and complexity.
DLM Test Administration Manual Source: https://dynamiclearningmaps.org/sites/default/files/documents/Manuals_Blueprints/Test_Administration_Manual_IE_2021-2022.pdf |
| OH | A review of student records indicates a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life.
Ohio AASCD Decision Making Flow Chart Source: https://oh-alt.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/ohio-alt/pdf/aascdparticipationcriteriaflowchartfinal0825141.pdf |
| OK | Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have limited conceptual skills, written language skills, and understanding of numerical concepts such as quantity, time, and money. Vocabulary and grammar are quite limited and augmentative communication devices are often necessary to communicate with others. They tend to focus on present, everyday events and rarely attempt to analyze or expand on new ideas and concepts through spoken language. Skill acquisition and measurable gains on grade-level alternate academic achievement standards require extensive, direct individualized instruction. These students require substantial supports for all activities of daily living including meal preparation, dressing, grooming, and personal hygiene. Their personal safety is dependent upon constant supervision and will be a concern throughout their lifetime.
State Definition of “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” 34 CFR § 200.6(d)(1) Source: https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/State%20Definition%20of%20SWCD.pdf |
| OR | Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are typically characterized by significantly below average general cognitive functioning. This commonly includes a student with intelligence test scores two or more standard deviations below the mean on a standardized individually administered intelligence test, occurring with commensurate deficits in adaptive behavior that are frequently also evident in early childhood. Further, the cognitive disability must significantly impact the child’s educational performance and ability to generalize learning from one setting to another. Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in general, require highly specialized education and/or social, psychological, and medical services to access an educational program. These students may also rely on adults for personal care and have medical conditions that require physical/verbal supports, and assistive technology devices. These intensive and on-going supports and services are typically provided directly by educators and are delivered across all educational settings.
Oregon Extended Assessment Decision Making Guidance Source: https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/assessment/AltAssessment/Documents/orextassessguidance.pdf |
| PA | Pennsylvania defines significant cognitive disabilities as pervasive and global in nature, affecting student learning in all academic content areas, as well as adaptive behaviors and functional skills across life domains.
Additional consideration: A significant cognitive disability is not directly defined by a Chapter 14 disability category. Typically students with a primary disability category of Specific Learning Disability or Speech Language Impairment DO NOT meet the definition of a significant cognitive disability. Generally, a student with a significant cognitive disability may be characterized as having intellectual functioning below average – cognitive measures of intelligence 2.5 to 3.0 standard deviations below the mean. PASA Eligibility Criteria: Decision Making Companion Tool Source: https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-12/Special%20Education/Assessment/PASA%20Eligibility%20Criteria.pdf |
| RI | Student has a disability, or disabilities, that significantly impacts cognitive function and adaptive behavior. Review of student records and other evidence indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that prevent the student from meaningful participation in the standard academic core curriculum or achievement of the standards at their enrolled grade level. Additionally, the student’s disability causes dependence on others for many, and sometimes all, daily living needs, and the student is expected to require extensive, ongoing support in adulthood. Regardless of a student’s disability category, evidence collected should show that the effect of the student’s disability significantly impacts their ability to function cognitively and adaptive behavior.
IEP Team Guidance on Eligibility for Alternate Assessments Source: https://www.ride.ri.gov/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Instruction-and-Assessment-World-Class-Standards/Assessment/RIAA/Guidance_for_IEP_Teams.pdf?ver=2021-12-08-155115-913 As defined by the U.S. Department of Education, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have one or more disabilities that especially affect intellectual functioning and adaptive behaviors. When adaptive behaviors are significantly affected, the individual is unlikely to develop the skills needed to live independently and to function safely in daily life. The DLM alternate assessment is designed for students for whom general education assessments are not appropriate, even with accessibility supports. Students taking the DLM alternate assessment require extensive, direct instruction and substantial supports to achieve measurable gains. These students learn academic content aligned to grade-level content standards but at reduced depth, breadth, and complexity. DLM Test Administration Manual Source: https://dynamiclearningmaps.org/sites/default/files/documents/Manuals_Blueprints/Test_Administration_Manual_YE.pdf |
| SC | Significant cognitive disability is characterized by ability scores on both verbal and nonverbal scales that are at least 2½–3 standard deviations below the mean. Students with ability scores in the average range are NOT considered to be students with significant cognitive disabilities. Adaptive skills relate to independence in everyday living skills, including interpersonal and social interactions across multiple settings. To be eligible to participate in an alternate assessment, students should demonstrate deficits in adaptive behavior skills with scores that are at least 2½–3 standard deviations below the mean in at least two adaptive skill domains. A student with a significant cognitive disability requires substantial modifications, adaptations, or supports to meaningfully access the subject area content and requires intensive individualized instruction in order to acquire and generalize knowledge. The student’s instruction should be based on the Prioritized Standards, which provide access to the general education curriculum at emerging, readiness (prerequisite), foundational, and less complex skill levels. Students with abilities below grade level should not be considered for alternate assessment if their ability and adaptive scores are in the average range, abilities that are below grade level do not mean a student should take an alternate assessment. Students who meet the eligibility criteria for alternate assessment may be classified in any of the disability categories listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as long as there is documentation that the student has a significant cognitive disability or severe intellectual disability and significant adaptive skills deficits.
Guidance for IEP Teams on Determining Participation in the SC-Alt Source: https://sc-alt.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/south-carolina/pdf/participation-guidance-for-iep-teams-2022.pdf |
| SD | Does student have a disability, or disabilities, that significantly impacts cognitive function and adaptive behavior? Review of student records and other evidence indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that prevent the student from meaningful participation in the standard academic core curriculum or achievement of the standards at their enrolled grade level. Additionally, the student’s disability causes dependence on others for many, and sometimes all, daily living needs, and the student is expected to require extensive ongoing support in adulthood.
Guidance for IEP Teams on Participation Decisions on the Alternate Assessment of South Dakota Content Standards Source: https://doe.sd.gov/assessment/documents/Alt-Guidelines-20.pdf |
| TN | To participate in an Alternate assessment, a student must demonstrate a significant cognitive disability which results in performance that is substantially below grade-level achievement expectations even with the use of accommodations and modifications. The student must also possess current adaptive skills requiring extensive direct instruction and practice in multiple settings to accomplish the application and transfer of skills necessary for application in school, work, home, and community environments. The IEP team must rule out that the inability to achieve the state grade-level achievement expectations is not the result of excessive or extended absences or social, cultural, or economic differences. A student with a significant cognitive disability requires substantial modifications, adaptations, or supports to meaningfully access the subject area content and requires intensive individualized instruction in order to acquire and generalize knowledge. The student’s instruction should be based on the Alternate Assessment Standards, which provide access to the general education curriculum. Students who meet the eligibility criteria for alternate assessment may be classified in any of the disability categories listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as long as there is documentation that the student has a significant cognitive disability or severe intellectual disability and significant adaptive skills deficits.
Alternate Assessment Participation Guidelines: Decision Making Tools for IEP Teams Source: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/testing/alt/alt_guide_decision_making_tools_for_IEP_teams.pdf |
| TX | Texas definition of a student with a significant cognitive disability is a student who:
• exhibits significant intellectual and adaptive behavior deficits in their ability to plan, comprehend, and reason, and ALSO indicates adaptive behavior deficits that limit their ability to apply social and practical skills such as personal care, social problem-solving skills, dressing, eating, using money, and other functional skills across life domains; • is NOT identified based on English learner designation or solely on the basis of previous low academic achievement or the need for accommodations; and • requires extensive, direct, individualized instruction, as well as a need for substantial supports that are neither temporary nor specific to a particular content area. Source: https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/testing/staar-alternate/staar-alternate-2-resources |
| UT | “Student with a significant cognitive disability” or “SCD” is determined by a comprehensive understanding of a whole student, including review of educational considerations and data obtained through the IEP process, including whether a student: (a) requires intensive, repeated, modified, and direct individualized instruction and requires substantial supports to learn, maintain, and generalize skills in the student’s grade and age-appropriate curriculum; (b) has special education eligibility documentation indicating the disability significantly impacts intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior; (c) demonstrates cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior in home, school, and community environments, which are significantly below age expectations, even with program modifications, adaptations, and accommodations; (d) has a severe and complex cognitive disability, which limits the student from meaningful participation in the standard academic core curriculum or achievement of the academic content standards established at grade level, without substantial support, modifications, adaptations, and accommodations; (e) may be eligible to participate in alternate assessments; and (f) has a disability, which increases the need for dependence on others for many, if not all, daily living needs, and is expected to require extensive ongoing support through adulthood.
Alternate Assessment Participation Guidelines Source: https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/67d0a151-d2c3-4c5f-9ba9-a9c94c9b079e |
| VT | Students who exhibit a significant cognitive disability are those whose records indicate a disability, or multiple disabilities, that require intensive or extensive levels of direct support that is not of a temporary or transient nature. These students require specially designed instruction that are aligned with the grade appropriate Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards, or extensions of those standards, to acquire, maintain, or generalize skills in multiple settings including the home, school, workplace, and community. The student’s disability must significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as actions essential for an individual to live independently and to function safely in daily life. Having a significant cognitive disability is not determined by an IQ test score, but rather a holistic understanding of a student.
Vermont’s Alternate Assessment Criteria Checklist Source: https://vt.portal.cambiumast.com/-/media/project/client-portals/vermont/pdf/2018/alt-assessment-criteria-checklist-vtaa.pdf |
| VA* | |
| WA | Students with significant cognitive disabilities means those students who require intensive or extensive levels of direct support that is not of a temporary or transient nature. Students with significant cognitive disabilities also require specially designed instruction to acquire, maintain or generalize skills in multiple settings in order to successfully transfer skills to natural settings including the home, school, workplace, and community. In addition, these students score at least two (2) standard deviations below the mean on standardized, norm-referenced assessments for adaptive behavior and intellectual functioning.
Guidelines for Statewide Accountability Assessments Source: https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/specialed/resourcelibrary/pubdocs/iep-team-guidelines-assess.pdf |
| WV | Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behaviors are essential to live independently and to function safely in daily life. When adaptive behaviors are significantly affected, it means the individual is unlikely to develop the skills necessary to live independently and function safely in daily life. In other words, significant cognitive disabilities affect students both in and out of the classroom and across life domains, not just in academic domains. Eligibility for participation requires the student holds a current IEP, a multidisciplinary evaluation, and educational performance data that supports the decision for an alternate assessment.
Participation Guidelines for West Virginia State Assessments Source: https://wvde.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Participation-Guidelines-in-WV-State-Assessments-2022-2023.pdf |
| WI | In order to define a student as having a most significant cognitive disability, the IEP team must review student records and agree:
• The student is typically characterized as functioning at least two and a half to three standard deviations below the mean in both adaptive behavior and cognitive functioning; and • The student performs substantially below grade level expectations on the academic content standards for the grade in which they are enrolled, even with the use of adaptations and accommodations; and • The student requires extensive, direct, individualized instruction and substantial supports to achieve measurable gains, across all content areas and settings. Participation Guidelines for Alternate Assessment Source: https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sped/doc/form-i-7-a.doc |
| WY | Cognitive Disability means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
(a) Cognitive Disability eligibility criteria: Eligibility is established through a comprehensive evaluation in accordance with the requirements of these rules by the school district or public agency. The initial evaluation process shall be comprehensive and address all areas of need resulting from the suspected disability. In accordance with these rules, a child is identified as a child with a Cognitive Disability if all of the following criteria are met: i. Documentation on an individual test of intelligence that the child’s intellectual functioning is two (2) standard deviations below the mean, taking into consideration the standard error of measurement. In the event that an individual test of intelligence is not able to be administered to the child, the evaluation team shall document how they determined that the child’s performance in a majority of areas; ii. Documentation on an individually administered test or assessment that the child’s academic or pre-academic skills are coexistent with the child’s deficits in intellectual functioning. Behavior observations, criterion-referenced tests, or documentation of classroom performance may be used when a child’s level of functioning cannot appropriately be measured by standardized tests; and iii. Documentation on standardized adaptive behavior measurements, that includes information gathered from parents and school staff, that the child’s deficits in adaptive behavior are coexistent with the child’s deficits in intellectual functioning.” (Chapter 7 Rules. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2019, from https://1ddlxtt2jowkvs672myo6z14-wpengine. netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/chapter _7_rules_march232010.pdf) Wyoming Alternate Assessment Participation Guidance Source: https://edu.wyoming.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/WY-ALT-Assessment-Participation-Guidance.pdf |
N=51
*State did not have a definition for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Table H-1. Criteria Included in Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities
| State | Significant Cognitive/Intellectual Deficits |
Poor Adaptive Skill Level |
Unable to Reach Grade Level Standards |
Extensive, Individualized, Direct Instruction |
Pervasive Needs Across Settings or Time |
Reference Score for IQ and/or Adaptive Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | X | X | ||
| AK | X | X | ||||
| AZ | X | X | ||||
| AR | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| CA | X | X | ||||
| CO | X | X | X | |||
| CT | X | X | X | X | ||
| DE | X | X | X | X | ||
| DC | X | X | X | X | ||
| FL | X | |||||
| GA | X | X | ||||
| HI | X | X | ||||
| ID | X | X | X | |||
| IL | X | X | X | |||
| IN | X | X | X | X | ||
| IA* | ||||||
| KS | X | X | X | |||
| KY | X | X | X | X | X | |
| LA | X | |||||
| ME | X | X | ||||
| MD | X | X | X | |||
| MA* | ||||||
| MI | X | X | X | |||
| MN* | ||||||
| MS | X | X | X | X | X | |
| MO* | ||||||
| MT | X | X | X | |||
| NE | X | X | X | X | X | |
| NV | X | X | X | |||
| NH | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| NJ | X | X | ||||
| NM | X | |||||
| NY | X | |||||
| NC | X | X | X | |||
| ND | X | X | X | |||
| OH | X | X | ||||
| OK | X | X | ||||
| OR | X | X | X | X | X | |
| PA | X | X | X | X | X | |
| RI | X | X | X | |||
| SC | X | X | X | |||
| SD | X | X | X | |||
| TN | X | X | X | X | X | |
| TX | X | X | X | X | ||
| UT | X | X | X | X | X | |
| VT | X | X | X | |||
| VA* | ||||||
| WA | X | X | X | X | X | |
| WV | X | X | ||||
| WI | X | X | X | X | X | |
| WY | X | X | X | |||
| Total | 41 | 38 | 14 | 23 | 19 | 15 |
N=51
*State did not have a definition for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Table H-2. Criteria Included in Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities, Continued
| State | Not Solely Based on IQ Score, Holistic |
Not Due to Excessive Absences |
Not Due to Certain Disabilities (e.g., SLD) |
Not Due to Social, Cultural, or Economic Factors |
Need for Communication/ Assistive Technology Systems |
Other* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | ||||||
| AK | X | |||||
| AZ | X | |||||
| AR | X | X | X | X | ||
| CA | X | X | ||||
| CO | X | X | ||||
| CT | X | |||||
| DE | X | |||||
| DC | X | |||||
| FL | X | |||||
| GA | X | |||||
| HI | X | X | ||||
| ID | X | X | ||||
| IL | X | |||||
| IN | X | X | ||||
| IA** | ||||||
| KS | ||||||
| KY | X | X | X | X | ||
| LA | X | |||||
| ME | ||||||
| MD | X | X | ||||
| MA** | ||||||
| MI | X | |||||
| MN** | ||||||
| MS | X | X | X | |||
| MO** | ||||||
| MT | ||||||
| NE | X | |||||
| NV | X | |||||
| NH | ||||||
| NJ | ||||||
| NM | X | |||||
| NY | X | X | ||||
| NC | X | |||||
| ND | X | |||||
| OH | ||||||
| OK | X | |||||
| OR | X | |||||
| PA | X | X | X | |||
| RI | X | |||||
| SC | X | |||||
| SD | X | |||||
| TN | X | X | X | |||
| TX | X | |||||
| UT | X | X | ||||
| VT | X | X | ||||
| VA** | ||||||
| WA | ||||||
| WV | X | |||||
| WI | X | X | X | X | ||
| WY | X | |||||
| Total | 10 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 28 |
N=51
* Details and specifications in Table H-3.
**State did not have a definition for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Table H-3. Details and Specifications for Criteria Included in Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities
| State | Details and Specifications |
|---|---|
| AK | Other: Adaptive behavior is defined as essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life. |
| AR | Other: Substantial modifications to the general education curriculum are required. Their personal safety is dependent upon constant supervision and will be a concern throughout their lifetime. They will likely require supported or assisted living which may involve a guardian when the student turns 18. |
| DE | Other: Significant deficits in adaptive behavior often result in the student being unable to develop the skills needed to live independently or to function safely in their daily life at home, in school and in the community. As a result, the student is learning academic content that is reduced in depth, breadth, and complexity. |
| DC | Other: Adaptive behavior essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life. |
| FL | Other: “Most significant cognitive disability” means a global cognitive impairment that adversely impacts multiple areas of functioning across many settings and is a result of a congenital, acquired or traumatic brain injury or syndrome and is verified by either: 2. In the extraordinary circumstance when a global, full-scale intelligent quotient score is unattainable, a school district-determined procedure that has been approved by the Florida Department of Education under paragraph (5)(e) of this rule. |
| GA | Other: Students with significant intellectual disabilities or intellectual disabilities concurrent with motor, sensory or emotional/behavioral disabilities who require substantial adaptations and support to access the general curriculum and require additional instruction focused on relevant life skills and participate in the Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA). |
| IL | Other: The reference to “typically associated with an IQ of below 55” is to help distinguish between students with cognitive disabilities and significant cognitive disabilities from students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. This means that many students with cognitive disabilities will not qualify for the DLM Alternate Assessment. By default, they must take our regular state assessment with or without accommodations. The inclusion of the words “typically associated with” allows for some district/school flexibility. It is by no means an absolute requirement. |
| IN | Other: The learning characteristics of a student with the “most significant intellectual disabilities” may include: requiring more time for processing, opportunities to generalize language, time to learn and process language, and alternate ways to communicate including augmentative and alternative communication to supplement or replace speech or writing. |
| KY | Other: Have a significant cognitive disability that is not primarily the result of:
• excessive or extended absences • disability related to visual or auditory disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities, speech and language impairment • native language, social, cultural, and economic differences, • those identified as English Learners (EL) • pre-determined poor performance on the grade-level assessment • the student displays disruptive behaviors or experiences emotional duress during testing • administrator decision • educational environment or instructional setting |
| LA | Other: Does the student have a significant cognitive disability? Demonstrated in ONE of the following ways:
a. Student has not completed 5th grade and is functioning 3 or more standard deviations below the mean in cognitive functioning; b. Student has completed 5th grade and is functioning 2.3 or more standard deviations below the mean in cognitive functioning; OR c. Student has completed 5th grade and is functioning between 2.0 and 2.29 standard deviations below the mean in cognitive functioning and with deficits in adaptive behavior supported by empirical evidence the alternate assessment is appropriate |
| MD | Other: The term “significant cognitive disability” is a designation given to a small number of Maryland students with disabilities for purposes of their participation in the statewide assessment program and instruction. Students eligible to be assessed and/or instructed based on alternate academic achievement standards may be from any of the disability categories listed in the IDEA. 34 CFR 200.1(f)(2). |
| MI | Other: Students with significant cognitive disabilities are supported with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the instruction is based on Michigan’s alternate content standards in English language arts (ELA), mathematics, science and/or social studies. |
| NE | Other: The student’s curriculum and instruction is aligned to the Nebraska College and Career Ready Academic Standards with Extended Indicators. The student may have accompanying communication, motor, sensory, or other impairments. |
| NV | Other: Low academic performance alone, without corresponding cognitive and adaptive skill deficits, is insufficient to determine that a student should be assessed on the NAA. In addition to identifying cognitive and adaptive skill deficits, the IEP committee must also consider the extent to which those deficits limit full participation in the general curriculum. |
| NM | Other: A student who: • requires substantial modifications, adaptations, or supports to meaningfully access the grade-level content; and • is unable to demonstrate achievement of academic content standards on the general education achievement test, even with accommodations. |
| NY | Other: “Students with severe disabilities” refers to students who have limited cognitive abilities combined with behavioral and/or physical limitations and who require highly specialized education and/or social, psychological, and medical services in order to maximize their full potential for useful and meaningful participation in society and for self-fulfillment. Students with severe disabilities may experience severe speech, language, and/or perceptual-cognitive impairments and challenging behaviors that interfere with learning and socialization opportunities. These students may also have extremely fragile physiological conditions and may require personal care, physical/verbal supports, and assistive technology devices. |
| NC | Other: The student requires extensive and repeated individualized instruction and support to make meaningful gains. The student uses substantially adapted materials and individualized methods of accessing information in alternative ways. |
| ND | Other: The DLM alternate assessment is designed for students for whom general education assessments are not appropriate, even with accessibility supports. Students taking the DLM alternate assessment require extensive, direct instruction and substantial supports to achieve measurable gains. These students learn academic content aligned to grade-level content standards but at reduced depth, breadth, and complexity. |
| OK | Other: Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have limited conceptual skills, written language skills, and understanding of numerical concepts such as quantity, time, and money. Vocabulary and grammar are quite limited and augmentative communication devices are often necessary to communicate with others. They tend to focus on present, everyday events and rarely attempt to analyze or expand on new ideas and concepts through spoken language. Skill acquisition and measurable gains on grade-level alternate academic achievement standards require extensive, direct individualized instruction. These students require substantial supports for all activities of daily living including meal preparation, dressing, grooming, and personal hygiene. Their personal safety is dependent upon constant supervision and will be a concern throughout their lifetime. |
| RI | Other: Additionally, the student’s disability causes dependence on others for many, and sometimes all, daily living needs, and the student is expected to require extensive, ongoing support in adulthood. |
| SC | Other: A student with a significant cognitive disability requires substantial modifications, adaptations, or supports to meaningfully access the subject area content and requires intensive individualized instruction in order to acquire and generalize knowledge. The student’s instruction should be based on the Prioritized Standards, which provide access to the general education curriculum at emerging, readiness (prerequisite), foundational, and less complex skill levels. Students with abilities below grade level should not be considered for alternate assessment if their ability and adaptive scores are in the average range, abilities that are below grade level do not mean a student should take an alternate assessment. Students who meet the eligibility criteria for alternate assessment may be classified in any of the disability categories listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as long as there is documentation that the student has a significant cognitive disability or severe intellectual disability and significant adaptive skills deficits. |
| SD | Other: Additionally, the student’s disability causes dependence on others for many, and sometimes all, daily living needs, and the student is expected to require extensive ongoing support in adulthood. |
| TN | Other: A student with a significant cognitive disability requires substantial modifications, adaptations, or supports to meaningfully access the subject area content and requires intensive individualized instruction in order to acquire and generalize knowledge. The student’s instruction should be based on the Alternate Assessment Standards, which provide access to the general education curriculum. Students who meet the eligibility criteria for alternate assessment may be classified in any of the disability categories listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as long as there is documentation that the student has a significant cognitive disability or severe intellectual disability and significant adaptive skills deficits. |
| TX | Other: Texas definition of a student with a significant cognitive disability is a student who: is NOT identified based on English learner designation or solely on the basis of previous low academic achievement or the need for accommodations. |
| UT | Other: “Student with a significant cognitive disability” or “SCD” is determined by a comprehensive understanding of a whole student, including review of educational considerations and data obtained through the IEP process, including whether a student: (f) has a disability, which increases the need for dependence on others for many, if not all, daily living needs, and is expected to require extensive ongoing support through adulthood. |
| VT | Other: These students require specially designed instruction that are aligned with the grade appropriate Common Core State Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards, or extensions of those standards, to acquire, maintain, or generalize skills in multiple settings including the home, school, workplace, and community. |
| WV | Other: In other words, significant cognitive disabilities affect students both in and out of the classroom and across life domains, not just in academic domains. Eligibility for participation requires the student holds a current IEP, a multidisciplinary evaluation, and educational performance data that supports the decision for an alternate assessment. |
| WY | Other: Documentation on an individually administered test or assessment that the child’s academic or pre-academic skills are coexistent with the child’s deficits in intellectual functioning. Behavior observations, criterion-referenced tests, or documentation of classroom performance may be used when a child’s level of functioning cannot appropriately be measured by standardized tests; and
Documentation on standardized adaptive behavior measurements, that includes information gathered from parents and school staff, that the child’s deficits in adaptive behavior are coexistent with the child’s deficits in intellectual functioning.” (Chapter 7 Rules. (n.d.). Retrieved April 22, 2019, from https://1ddlxtt2jowkvs672myo6z14-wpengine. netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/chapter_7_rules_march232010.pdf) |
Table I-1. Information in Parent/Guardian Materials
| State | Student Will Take AA-AAAS |
Mentions Academic Stan-dards |
Effect on Diploma Type or Post- Secondary Options |
Parent/ Guardian Signature or Initials |
Inform of Options if Parent/Guardian Does Not Agree |
Provides General Information to Parent/Guardian about AA-AAAS |
Othera |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| AK | X | X | X | X | |||
| AZ | X | X | X | X | |||
| AR | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| CA | X | X | X | ||||
| CO | X | X | |||||
| CT | X | ||||||
| DE | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| DC | X | X | X | ||||
| FL | X | X | X | ||||
| GA | X | ||||||
| HI | X | X | X | X | |||
| ID | X | X | X | X | |||
| IL | X | X | X | ||||
| IN | X | X | X | X | |||
| IA | X | ||||||
| KS | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| KY | X | X | X | X | X | X | |
| LA | X | X | X | ||||
| ME | X | ||||||
| MD | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| MA | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| MI | X | X | X | ||||
| MN | X | ||||||
| MS | X | ||||||
| MO | X | ||||||
| MT** | |||||||
| NE | X | X | X | X | |||
| NV | X | ||||||
| NH | X | ||||||
| NJ** | |||||||
| NM | X | ||||||
| NY | X | X | X | X | |||
| NC | X | ||||||
| ND | X | ||||||
| OH | X | X | |||||
| OK | X | ||||||
| OR | X | X | X | ||||
| PA | X | ||||||
| RI | X | X | X | X | |||
| SC | X | X | X | X | |||
| SD** | |||||||
| TN | X | X | X | ||||
| TX | X* | X | X | X* | X | X | X |
| UT | X* | X* | X* | X | |||
| VT | X | ||||||
| VA | X | X | X | ||||
| WA** | |||||||
| WV | X | X | X | ||||
| WI | X | X | X | X | |||
| WY | X | X | X | ||||
| Total | 31 | 24 | 23 | 19 | 4 | 37 | 1 |
N=51
See parent/guardian information texts (excluding flyers and FAQ documents) in Table I-3.
aDetails and specifications in Table I-2.
*Information noted in student’s IEP.
**State did not have materials about informing parents about AA-AAAS.
Table I-2. Details and Specifications for Information in Parent/Guardian Materials
| State | Details and Specifications |
| TX | Other: Student should be informed of their participation in the AA-AAAS. |
Table I-3. Parent/Guardian Information Texts (Not Including Parent/Guardian Flyers or FAQ Documents)
| State | Parent Text | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | This form must be signed by the parent(s) after the IEP Team has determined that the general education assessment, even with accommodations, would not be an accurate measurement of academic achievement, and, therefore, the student will participate in the ACAP Alternate. This document will become part of the student’s IEP and filed with the current IEP record. I understand that my child’s achievement will be measured by participation in the ACAP Alternate, which is based on the Alternate Achievement Standards. I understand that my child’s participation in an alternate assessment may delay or otherwise affect my child’s completion of the requirements for a regular high school diploma. I understand that decisions regarding participation in statewide assessments must be discussed at the student’s annual IEP Team meeting and documented in the IEP. | ||||||||||||
| AK | Parents/guardians must be informed when their child’s instruction will be based on content aligned with the Essential Elements rather than regular curricular offerings and their child’s achievement measured by the alternate assessment will be based on the Alternate Achievement Standards. The notification must also include how the child’s participation in this instruction and in the alternate assessments may delay or otherwise affect the student’s completion of the requirements of a regular high school diploma.
The following information must be documented and stored in the student’s special education file. A sample IEP form can be found in the Guidance for Special Education Personnel available on the DEED SPED webpage (education.alaska.gov/sped). 1. Acknowledgement that the alternate assessment (DLM) is based on alternate achievement standards, and therefore, may delay or limit the student’s ability to obtain a regular high school diploma. 2. An acknowledgement, signed by the parent/guardian, stating that he or she has been notified that the student is taking the alternate assessment (DLM) for the current school year. If a parent/guardian does not attend the IEP meeting, a letter of notification must be sent by the district. 3. A statement in the IEP by the team describing why the general content assessments (AK STAR and Alaska Science) in English language arts, mathematics, and science are not appropriate. 4. A statement in the IEP by the team describing why the alternate assessment (DLM) is appropriate based on the participation criteria. |
||||||||||||
| AZ | Alternate Assessment Participation Following IEP team review of participation guidelines, the student is eligible for and will participate in the following assessments: MSAA (ELA/Mathematics) and/or Science Yes School year No (student will participate in statewide achievement tests) Potential Consequences Are there any effects or local policies that would preclude completion requirements for a regular high school diploma for the child participating in testing? Yes No Each of us agrees with the alternate assessment participation decisions indicated above. [signature] |
||||||||||||
| AR | IEP Team Statement of Assurance: Our decision was based on multiple pieces of evidence that, when taken together, demonstrated that the Arkansas Alternate Assessment is the most appropriate assessment for this student; that his/her academic instruction will be based on the Essential Elements linked to the Arkansas Academic Standards; that the Additional Considerations listed above were not used to make this decision; and that any additional implications of this decision were discussed thoroughly.
Each of us agrees with the participation decision in the Arkansas Alternate Assessment: [signature] |
||||||||||||
| CA | |||||||||||||
| CO | IEP Team Consensus: (Record decision on IEP Form)
• Student meets participation guidelines as a student with a significant cognitive disability and will receive instruction based upon alternate academic achievement standards and participate in alternate assessment as indicated above. |
||||||||||||
| CT | |||||||||||||
| DE | I understand that my child’s participation in the DeSSA-Alternate Assessment may lead to a Diploma of Alternate Achievement Standards, which may not be accepted by colleges and technical/trade schools. ? Yes ? No
I understand that the standards assessed in the DeSSA-Alternate Assessment are less complex than the Delaware Content Standards assessed in the DeSSA general assessments. ? Yes ? No I participated in the discussion on the decision for my child to participate in the DeSSA-Alternate Assessment. ? Yes ? No I was provided informational flyers about the DeSSA-Alternate Assessment. ? Yes ? No [Parent Initials] |
||||||||||||
| DC | IEP Team Statement of Assurance: Our decision was based on multiple pieces of evidence that, when taken together, demonstrated that the Alternate Assessment is the most appropriate assessment for this student; that his/her academic instruction will be based on the NCSC CCCs linked to the CCSS; that the Additional Considerations listed above were not used to make this decision; and that any additional implications of this decision were discussed thoroughly.
Each of us participated in the decision regarding the DC Alternate Assessment: [signature] |
||||||||||||
| FL | Dear Parent/Guardian: You are receiving this letter because your child’s individual educational plan (IEP) team has determined that he or she meets the requirements for participation in the Florida Standards Alternate Assessment—Performance Task (FSAA—PT). The FSAA—PT is designed specifically for students with significant cognitive disabilities, and its purpose is to provide parents/guardians and teachers with information about how students are progressing from grade to grade and adhere to the federal laws that hold schools accountable for student achievement. The FSAA—PT measures student achievement on the Florida Standards Access Points in English language arts (ELA) and mathematics, and the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards Access Points in science and social studies. Access Points reflect the core intent of the standards but with less complexity. If you would like to know more about the Access Points, you can find them at http://www.cpalms.org/Public/search/AccessPoint. The assessment windows for the 2021–2022 school year are as follows: ? Elementary and Middle Schools: February 28, 2022—April 15, 2022 ? Grades 3–8 ELA & Mathematics ? Grades 4–8 Writing ? Grades 5 & 8 Science ? End-of-Course Assessment (Civics) ? High School: March 14–April 29, 2022 ? Grades 9 & 10 ELA ? Grades 9 & 10 Writing ? End-of-Course Assessments (Algebra 1, Biology 1, Geometry, U.S. History) Your child will be assessed during the week(s) of ________________________. If you have any questions about the FSAA—PT, please contact your child’s teacher or the school district’s exceptional student education office. For more information about the FSAA program, you may visit http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/fl-alternate-assessment.stml. We are committed to ensuring that students receive a quality education and are provided an opportunity to demonstrate the skills they have learned. Thank you for supporting your student and encouraging him or her to do his or her best during this test administration. Sincerely,
Parental Consent Form In accordance with Rule 6A-6.0331(10)(b), F.A.C., if the IEP team decides that the student will participate in access courses and be assessed through the FSAA program, the parents or guardians of the student must give signed consent to have their child instructed in access points, and their child’s achievement measured based on alternate academic achievement standards. This decision must be documented on the Parental Consent Form – Instruction in the State Standards Access Points Curriculum and Statewide, Standardized Alternate Assessment, available at https://www.flrules.org/gateway/reference.asp?No=Ref-04779. If the parents fail to respond after reasonable efforts by the school district to obtain consent, the school district may provide instruction in the state standards access points curriculum and the student may participate in the FSAA program. The IEP should include a statement of why the student cannot participate in the general assessment and why the alternate assessment is appropriate. |
||||||||||||
| GA | |||||||||||||
| HI | Dear Parent, Guardian or Caregiver: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, requires states to establish challenging standards, develop aligned assessments, and build accountability systems based upon educational results. All students are included in a state’s system of standards, assessments, and accountability. For students with significant cognitive disabilities, states administer an alternate form of assessment in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Hawaii’s Alternate Assessment- the Hawaii State Assessment- Alternate (HSA-Alt) allows students with significant cognitive disabilities access to test content. This assessment differs from the general assessment in several ways, most importantly the content of the test, although linked to grade-level standards, is reduced in depth, breadth, and complexity. Performance expectations for alternate students, students with significant cognitive disabilities, are not the same as those for students who take the general assessment. The HSA-Alt is delivered in grades 3-8, and 11 for English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics and in grades 5, 8 and 11 for Science. If your child is in these testing grades they are slated to take the HSA-Alt sometime this year between February 22, 2022 and May 27, 2022. Your child’s teacher will administer the HSA-Alt assessments to him or her, individually or in a small group setting. Your child will be able to respond in his or her most appropriate modality (oral, signed language, picture system, or augmentative communication device). The time required to administer the assessments will be approximately one hour per content area. However, each assessment does not need to be completed in a single session. Your child will be given breaks, as needed. Additionally, your child will use the appropriate accommodations that have been recommended by the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team members so that your child can successfully demonstrate what he or she has learned. Participation in the HSA-Alt does not prevent a student from obtaining a Hawaii high school diploma. All students who obtain this diploma will need to meet the minimum course and credit requirements. Go to: http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/StudentLearning/GraduationRequirements/Page s/Requirements.aspx for more information. The Department strongly encourages all parents to have their child participate in the Hawaii State Alternate Assessment so that we can better identify your child’s academic strengths and needs. If you have any questions, please contact the school at ____________. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely,
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, reauthorized in December, 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA-2002, ESSA-2015) expands the requirements of IDEA. ESSA contains specific language with regard to accountability and inclusion of students with disabilities in state assessment and accountability programs. ESSA also requires that parents be informed of the potential consequences, such as potential limitations on postsecondary opportunities, for their child if he or she is being assessed against alternate achievement standards. For additional information on the federal regulations (ESSA, IDEA) see the section titled, Including All Students with Disabilities in State Accountability Assessments, on pages 45-55 in this document. A letter template (Parent IDEA Letter) for schools to provide to parents about a student’s participation in the HSA-Alt assessments can be found on the HSA-Alt portal in the Resources section (https://hsa-alt.alohahsap.org/resources/). |
||||||||||||
| ID | IEP Team Statement of Assurance
The decision for Click or tap to enter student name to participate in the Idaho Alternate Assessment was based on multiple pieces of evidence that, when taken together, demonstrate that the student meets all four IDAA participation criteria: The student has a significant cognitive impairment; he/she receives instruction based on the Idaho Extended Content Standards; his/her course of study is primarily adaptive skills oriented; and he/she requires extensive, direct, individualized instruction and substantial supports. The non-participation criteria were not used to qualify the student to participate in the IDAA. The implications of this decision were discussed thoroughly by the IEP team and are understood by the student’s parent(s). [Parent name] |
||||||||||||
| IL | Dear Parent or Guardian:
Again, this year, (STATE’s NAME) will be using the Dynamic Learning Maps® (DLM®) alternate assessment to use for our students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The DLM assessment provides academic standards that are used to measure academic achievement for students who are eligible for the alternate assessment. Throughout this school year in (SCHOOL’s NAME), your child will be provided academic instruction in English language arts, mathematics, and science using the (STATE’S NAME) standards. In the spring, during our state’s assessment window, your child will take testlets. These testlets will be in English language arts, mathematics, and science. Each testlet includes questions from one or more of the standards that your child’s teacher used for instruction during the school year. The spring assessment window for our state is [enter your test administration window dates]. During the spring assessment window, the number of testlets and the approximate length of time for testing may vary depending on the subject, the grade level, and each student’s individual needs. The materials used in the testlets can be adapted to your child’s needs. The testlets must be completed during our state’s assessment window, but your child may take the testlets over a period of several days during that window as needed. We anticipate that testing time will be as follows:
Your child’s results are completely confidential (in accordance with the Confidential Information Protection provisions of Title V, Subtitle A, Public Law 107–346). Scores from the testlets will be used according to your district’s policy. If you would like additional information about the Dynamic Learning Maps alternate assessment, please visit http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/. If you have questions, please contact me at [TELEPHONE NUMBER] or via e-mail [E-MAIL ADDRESS]. We are excited that our district will take part in the Dynamic Learning Maps alternate assessment again this year, and we are very pleased that your child will be participating. Sincerely, School Principal |
||||||||||||
| IN | The Case Conference Committee (CCC) determines, based on the criteria provided and the student’s individual and unique needs, whether a student with disabilities will participate in general education assessments with or without testing accommodations, or in the alternate assessment with or without accommodations. The alternate assessment is based on alternate achievement standards/content connectors. The CCC must be informed that the decision to participate in an alternate assessment means the student will have limited or modified exposure to the grade level standards that may have a significant impact on the student’s academic outcomes and post-secondary opportunities. When the CCC concurs that all four of the criteria below accurately characterize a student’s current educational situation, the CCC is indicating that the student has a significant cognitive disability, therefore, the student is ELIGIBLE to participate in the Alternate Assessment in lieu of the General Education Assessment. | ||||||||||||
| IA | |||||||||||||
| KS | Parent/legal education decision-maker notification includes discussion of ALL of the following areas. • The differences between the alternate achievement standards and academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled, including any effects of State and local policies on the student’s education resulting from taking an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards; AND • That the student’s achievement will be measured based on alternate achievement standards; AND • How the student’s participation in alternate standards and assessment(s) may delay or otherwise affect the student from completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma; AND • That the student will not be prevented from attempting to complete the requirements for a regular high school diploma. AND • The LEA provided the parent(s)/legal education decision-maker with ALL of the above information in an understandable and uniform format and in a written language or oral translation that the parent(s)/legal education decision-maker can understand. [Parent/legal education decision-maker signature] |
||||||||||||
| KY | https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/instresources/Documents/Parent_Guide_to_Alternate_K-Prep.pdf https://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/instresources/Documents/Guidance_for_Admissions_and_Release_Participation_Decisions_for_Alternate_Assessment.pdf |
||||||||||||
| LA | EAP Connect Decision: The LEAP Connect form will be considered a page of the student’s current IEP. Assessment determinations and this form are completed annually. Assessment decisions are documented on the student’s IEP. If the student qualified under the conditions listed for criterion 1.C. above, the ‘Additional Documentation for using Criterion 1.C.’ section of this LEAP Connect form and the required supporting documentation must be attached to or included in the student’s IEP.
• Eligible for participation in alternate assessment and will participate in the alternate assessment. • Eligible for participation in alternate assessment but will not participate in the alternate assessment. Student will participate in the regular statewide assessment, with accommodations as needed. • Not eligible for participation in the alternate assessment. Student will participate in the regular statewide assessment, with accommodations as needed. [Parent signature] |
||||||||||||
| ME | Parents and guardians are members of the IEP team and need to remain engaged in the assessment process beyond determination of student eligibility for the MSAA. Thus, they need to receive accurate information about the MSAA. Resources should be made available to parents (and all IEP team members) well before the assessment participation decisions are made for the current school year and subsequent school years. | ||||||||||||
| MD | Parent/Guardian Understanding I have been informed that if my child is determined eligible to participate in the Maryland Alternate Assessments through the IEP team decision-making process: 1. My child will be progressing toward a Maryland Certificate of Program Completion. If my child continues to participate in the Maryland Alternate Assessments, he/she may not be eligible for a Maryland High School Diploma. His/her continued participation in the Maryland Alternate Assessments will not prepare him/her to meet the high school diploma requirements. __________ (Parent/Guardian initials) 2. The decision for my child to participate in the Maryland Alternate Assessments must be made annually. __________ (Parent/Guardian initials) IEP Team Statement of Assurance: Our decision was based on multiple pieces of evidence that, when taken together, demonstrated that the Maryland Alternate Assessments are appropriate for this student; that his/her academic instruction will be based on alternate academic achievement standards (the CCCs and EEs linked to the MCCRS); that the additional considerations listed above were not used to make this decision; and that any additional implications of this decision were discussed thoroughly, including that participation in the Maryland Alternate Assessments will not qualify a student for a regular high school diploma. Parent Consent Form The individualized education program (IEP) team proposes to (select all that apply): ? Enroll the child in an alternative education program that does not issue or provide credits towards a Maryland High School Diploma; ? Identify the child for the alternative education assessment aligned with the State’s alternative curriculum; and/or ? Include restraint or seclusion (circle one or both) in the IEP to address the child’s behavior as described in COMAR 13A.08.04.05. If the IEP team has proposed any of the actions above, then the IEP team must obtain written consent from a parent. 3. If the parent does not provide written consent at the IEP team meeting, then the IEP team must send the parent written notice of their consent rights no later than five (5) business days after the meeting. If the parent is at the meeting, the notice may be hand delivered to avoid delay. 4. If the parent refuses to consent to any of the actions proposed, the IEP team may use dispute resolution (mediation or due process) to resolve the matter. NOTICE TO PARENT: 1. You have the right to either consent to OR refuse to consent to any of the actions proposed by the IEP team above. 2. If you do not provide written consent OR a written refusal within fifteen (15) business days of the IEP team meeting, the IEP team may implement the proposed action. 3. The deadline for you to respond starts from the date of the IEP team meeting at which the action was proposed. See the other side of this form to provide your written consent or a written refusal – and return it before the deadline. |
||||||||||||
| MA | Dear Parent/Guardian:
Your child’s IEP team has recommended that he or she take the MCAS Alternate Assessment (MCAS-Alt) in the coming year, rather than the standard MCAS test, in the following subject(s): __________________________________________________________________________ The team has agreed that your child is working well below grade-level expectations and is unable to show knowledge and skills on the standard MCAS test, even with accommodations. Your child’s teacher(s) will collect samples of his or her schoolwork and other information throughout the school year and present these materials in an MCAS-Alt portfolio that shows how well he or she is meeting goals in the subject(s) listed above. The portfolio will be sent to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education in late March or early April where it will be reviewed and scored to let you know whether your child has made progress on his or her academic goals. His or her achievement will be measured based on different achievement levels than the standard MCAS test. Next year, the IEP team will review the decision to continue assessing your child on the MCAS-Alt, or whether to switch to the standard MCAS test with accommodations. We want you to be aware that participation in an alternate assessment may eventually delay or affect your child’s ability to complete the state’s requirements for a high school diploma, because the MCAS-Alt assesses learning standards that are below the expectations needed to earn the Competency Determination. You can learn more about graduation requirements on the Internet at www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/graduation.html. Your child’s teacher can answer your questions about MCAS and MCAS-Alt, or you may call the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Office of Student Assessment at 781-338-3625. Thank you for your attention to this important information. Sincerely, |
||||||||||||
| MI | Parent Notification: If the IEP team determines that MI-Access is the most appropriate state level assessment for any given student, the school must provide information to that student’s parents regarding any implication this decision may have on the student completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma. | ||||||||||||
| MN | |||||||||||||
| MS | |||||||||||||
| MO | |||||||||||||
| MT | Parents/guardians are members of the IEP team and need to remain engaged in the assessment process beyond determination of student eligibility for the Alternate Assessments. Thus, they need to receive accurate information about these assessments. The OPI publishes resources for families under the Parent Corner Site and educators can use the NCSC Resource Library to make this information available to parents/guardians (and all IEP team members) well before the assessment participation decisions are made for the current school year. | ||||||||||||
| NE | IEP Team agrees that the decision was based on multiple pieces of evidence that, when looked at together, demonstrated that the Alternate Assessment is the most appropriate assessment for this student. That his/her academic instruction is based on the Extended Indicators linked to the Nebraska College and Career Academic Standards. The additional considerations listed here were not used to make this decision; and any other additional implications were discussed. YES NO IEP team members: In order for the student to participate in the alternate assessment, which is based on Nebraska’s College and Career Ready Extended Indicators, ALL four criteria listed above have been met. (Signatures optional.) [Parent/guardian signature] | ||||||||||||
| NV | If an IEP committee does not answer “YES” to all six guiding questions, then the student should not participate in the NAA. IEP committees should ensure that each of the six guiding questions is discussed so that parents and other IEP committee members understand what answering “YES” to each question means, | ||||||||||||
| NH | Dear Parent or Guardian: Each year, New Hampshire public schools are required by state law (RSA 193-C) to assess all students using a standardized assessment. The Dynamic Learning Maps® (DLM®) alternate assessment is for our students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The DLM assessment provides academic standards that are used to measure academic achievement for students who are eligible for the alternate assessment. Results from the assessment provide information that the teacher can use to guide classroom instruction. The DLM alternate assessment is an individualized test designed so students can show what they know and can do. The assessment is given in short parts called testlets. The number of testlets and the approximate length of time for testing may vary depending on the subject, grade level, and each student’s individual needs. Your child may take the testlets over a period of several days during the testing window, as needed. The spring testing window is March 14-June 10, 2022. Students are assessed in grades 3-8 and 11. Approximate testing times are as follows: Subject Area Tested Grade Level Number of Testlets Approximate length of time English language arts 3-8 and 11 9 testlets 90–135 minutes Mathematics 3-8 and 11 6–8 testlets 60–120 minutes Science 5, 8 and 11 9 testlets 45–125 minutes DLM test results should be provided by your child’s case manager or teacher. Test results are available by the end of July. Please contact your school directly with questions on when to expect these results. Practice Tests Parents may access practice tests for the DLM through student demo accounts available in the Guide to Practice Activities and Released Testlets. If you would like additional information about the Dynamic Learning Maps alternate assessment, please visit http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/. If you have questions, please contact me at [TELEPHONE NUMBER] or via e-mail [E-MAIL ADDRESS]. Sincerely, School Principal | ||||||||||||
| NJ | IEP Team Agreement List the name and title of each team member and indicate agreement/disagreement with the determination to participate in the DLM assessment. | ||||||||||||
| NM | |||||||||||||
| NY | Parent Notification of Participation in the New York State Alternate Assessment (Sample Letter) Date: ___________ Dear Parent/Guardian: This letter serves to inform you that your child, _______________________, was recommended by the committee on special education (CSE) to participate in the New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA), rather than in the general statewide assessment program, in the following subjects:_______________________________________________________________. In making this recommendation, the CSE has determined that your child meets New York State’s (NYS) eligibility and participation criteria for NYSAA and that the general statewide assessment program is not an appropriate assessment program for your child to demonstrate his/her knowledge and skills, even with testing accommodations. NYSAA is part of the NYS testing program that measures student performance on alternate achievement standards in the areas of English language arts (ELA), mathematics, and science for students with the most severe cognitive disabilities in grades 3-8 and high school. Students recommended for participation in NYSAA must receive instruction in the same State learning standards as students participating in NYS’s general assessments; however, they are instructed and assessed against alternate standards that are at a reduced level of complexity. Your child will be assessed using the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) alternate assessment system. DLM alternate assessment is a computer-delivered, adaptive assessment system that measures student achievement of ELA, mathematics, and science state learning standards at a reduced level of complexity. This computerized assessment provides the opportunity to customize the assessment to the individual abilities and needs of your child. Your child’s CSE, of which you are a member, will make an annual recommendation on whether NYSAA remains an appropriate assessment program for your child. Please be aware that NYSAA assesses learning standards that do not meet the expectations needed to earn a regular high school diploma (local or Regents diploma) in NYS. In order to earn a NYS high school diploma, students must earn required course credits and participate in required Regents examinations. Your child will not be able to meet the requirements for a NYS high school diploma if he/she continues to participate in NYSAA for one or more subjects in high school. Additional information on graduation requirements is available on the New York State Education Department’s (NYSED’s) Office of Curriculum and Instruction webpage (http://www.nysed.gov/curriculum-instruction/). If you have any questions about your child’s participation in NYSAA, you are encouraged to speak with your child’s teacher or special education administrator. For questions on NYSAA, you may also wish to contact NYSED’s Office of Special Education Policy Unit at 518-473-2878 or the Office of State Assessment at 518-474-5900. Additional information on NYSAA, including A Parent’s Quick Guide to the New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) is available on NYSED’s Office of State Assessment NYSSA webpage (http://www.p12.nysed.gov/assessment/nysaa/ home.html). Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, | ||||||||||||
| NC | When discussing the use of an alternate assessment, the IEP team must carefully review potential long-term consequences for state and local graduation requirements with all team members, including the parent(s), legal guardian(s), surrogate parent(s), and the student, beginning at age fourteen (or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP team) for post-secondary transition planning. Automatic and blanket use of an alternate assessment for groups of students based on one or more common characteristics, such as a specific disability or low achievement, is prohibited. | ||||||||||||
| ND | |||||||||||||
| OH | Based on the review of evidence in parts A, B and C and ensuring the decision is not based solely on any of the considerations above, does the student meet all criteria for participation in the alternate assessment?
___ Yes. The student meets all criteria in parts A, B and C and will participate in the alternate assessment. ___ No, the student does not meet all criteria in parts A, B and C and is not eligible for participation in the alternate assessment. School District Representative (Name/Date) ___________________________________ Intervention Specialist (Name/Date) __________________________________________ General Education Teacher (Name/Date) ______________________________________ Parent/Guardian (Name/Date) ______________________________________________ |
||||||||||||
| OK | |||||||||||||
| OR | Parent Notification Requirements. State (or in the case of a district-wide assessment, an LEA) must ensure that parents of students selected to be assessed using an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards under the State’s guidelines in paragraph (c)(1) of this section are informed, consistent with 34 CFR 200.2(e), that their child’s achievement will be measured based on alternate academic achievement standards, and of how participation in such assessments may delay or otherwise affect the student from completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma. Section 300.160 (e) of IDEA Beginning in grade five or beginning after a documented history has been established and then annually, school districts and public charter schools are required to provide annually, information to the parents or guardians of a student taking an alternate assessment who has the documented history, about the availability of a Modified Diploma, Extended Diploma, and Alternative Certificate and the requirements for each of these options. OAR 581-022-2010(4)(d), OAR 581-022-2015(7)(b), OAR 581-022-2020(5)(b)
Federal regulations at CFR 300.160(2)(e) require that parents must be informed about the consequences of having their child assessed against alternate academic achievement standards, particularly as it relates to potential limitations on diploma options for graduation. As part of the eligibility determination process, IEP teams should review all Oregon diploma options and discuss potential limitations of any option other than a standard diploma, as elaborated in the graduation options Frequently Asked Questions 2015 document. Pursuant to CFR 300.160(2), participation in the ORExt does not prohibit a student from attempting to complete the requirements for a standard high school diploma; however, participation in an alternate assessment denotes a substantial reduction in terms of access to the full depth, breadth, and complexity of Oregon’s grade level content standards during instruction and may limit a student’s access to credit-bearing coursework required for a standard diploma.” |
||||||||||||
| PA | |||||||||||||
| RI | If the IEP team determines that the student is eligible, they must document their decision using the Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessments Form and include it with the IEP. An IEP team LEA representative must sign the completed form and a copy must be attached to the IEP and placed in the student’s file. This must be completed each year at the time of the IEP annual review for students in grades K - 12. This must be done regardless of grade level. For example, grade 9 students do not take an alternate assessment but the Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessments Form should be completed and kept with the student’s IEP.
If the IEP team decides that the student is not eligible, then three things must happen: 1. The student must participate in the state assessments for their current grade level with appropriate accommodations as determined by the IEP team. 2. The student’s instruction must be aligned to the CCSS and NGSS via the general education curriculum. Without access to the general education curriculum, students will not be able to learn the academic skills and knowledge for their grade level which will be assessed through the state assessments. 3. Record of the decision must be recorded on the Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessments Form, attached to the IEP and placed in the student’s file. If the parent or guardian of the student disagrees with the IEP team decision regarding eligibility for the alternate assessments, they have the right to request mediation or initiate a due process hearing as described within the procedural safeguards by visiting the Rhode Island Department of Education webpage “When Schools and Families Disagree” at the address below or by contacting the Rhode Island Department of Education Call Center at 401-222-8999. http://www.ride.ri.gov/StudentsFamilies/SpecialEducation/WhenSchoolsandFamiliesDoNotAgree.aspx Additionally, the Rhode Island Parent Information Network (RIPIN), a nonprofit organization not affiliated with RIDE, also provides peer mentors to help parents through the IEP process. Any parent who would like access to a mentor can contact RIPIN’s resource center at 401-270-0101. RIPIN does not provide advocates. IEP Team Assurance: The IEP team has thoroughly discussed the evidence gathered to determine eligibility, how that evidence aligns to the three criteria, it has used only the three participation criteria above, and no others, to reach that decision (List 1 on page 11). The IEP team has informed the parent(s) of the implications of their child’s participation in the alternate assessments, namely that: • Their child’s academic progress towards achievement of the content standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science will be measured using the Essential Elements. • They understand the graduation options for their child. NOTE: LEAs may choose to award diplomas to students who qualify for the alternate assessment if the student demonstrates proficiency through their coursework using modified proficiency expectations for state-adopted standards (CCSS, NGSS, etc.). LEAs also have the authority to award a certificate of alternate recognition of high school accomplishment, in accordance with LEA-defined policies and criteria (see page 12 of this manual for more information). • They have been informed of any other implications, including any effects of local policies on the student’s education, resulting from taking an alternate assessment. • The IEP team does / does not (circle one) find this student eligible to participate in the alternate assessments. |
||||||||||||
| SC | I understand that participation in alternate assessment means that my child is participating in a curriculum that will NOT lead to a high school diploma. [Parent signature] | ||||||||||||
| SD | Parents and guardians are members of the IEP team and need to remain engaged in the assessment process beyond determination of student eligibility for the MSAA. Thus, they need to receive accurate information about the MSAA. Resources should be made available to parents (and all IEP team members) well before the assessment participation decisions are made for the current school year and subsequent school years. | ||||||||||||
| TN | I understand that participation in alternate assessment means that my child is participating in a curriculum that will NOT lead to a high school diploma. [Parent signature] | ||||||||||||
| TX | Assurances:
______ Under 34 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §300.320(a)(6) and 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC)§89.1055, if the ARD committee determines that the student will take STAAR Alternate 2, the IEP must provide a statement of why the student cannot participate in the general assessment (STAAR) with or without allowable accommodations, and why the alternate assessment is appropriate for the student, including that all five eligibility criteria are met. ______ The decision to administer STAAR Alternate 2 is made by the ARD committee based solely on the student’s educational need, not administratively based on federal accountability requirements, which limit the number of students assessed with an alternate assessment to no more than 1.0% of the total number of students in the State who are assessed in a subject. ______ For a student whom the ARD committee deems eligible to take STAAR Alternate 2, the committee understands that instructional and assessment decisions made may impact a student’s graduation plan in high school, as described in 19 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §??.????. ______ According to ?? (TAC) §???.??(b), school districts are required to follow the procedures specified in the applicable test administration materials. If the ARD committee determines that the student will take STAAR Alternate ?, justification that is based on the information in this form and the student’s individual allowable accommodations must be documented in the student’s IEP. The student’s parents or guardians have been notified that the student will be assessed against extended academic achievement standards. Notice of Procedural Safeguards (multiple languages) Parent’s Guide to the ARD Process (multiple languages): https://fw.escapps.net/Display_Portal/publications |
||||||||||||
| UT | IEP must include:
For eligible students with significant cognitive disabilities who will participate in grade-level alternate achievement standards (i.e., Essential Elements): (1) Notification to the parent(s) or adult student that the student’s academic achievement will be measured through an assessment of the grade-level Utah alternate achievement standards and how participation in such alternate achievement assessments may delay or otherwise affect the student from completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma; |
||||||||||||
| VT | The IEP team has identified the need for an alternate assessment and the student’s parents or guardians have been notified that the student will be assessed against alternate academic achievement standards. | ||||||||||||
| VA | Critical Decision Points for Families of Children with Disabilities | ||||||||||||
| WA | |||||||||||||
| WV | Brochure, fact sheet, and community readiness document: https://wvde.us/special-education/resources-sp-page/intellectual-disability/ | ||||||||||||
| WI | Dear Parent or Guardian:
As determined by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, your child will be participating in the upcoming Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) Alternate Assessment. The DLM assessment measures the academic progress of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in the subject areas of English language arts (ELA) and mathematics at grades 3-11, science at grades 4 and 8-11, and in social studies at grades 4, 8, and 10. The DLM testing window is March 20April 28, 2023. Each student is administered the test on an individual basis, and may take the test over several days, as long as it is completed within the testing window. Your child does not need to prepare in any way for the assessment. Enclosed is an Informational Brochure for Families that provides more information about the DLM assessment including its purpose, what scores will be provided, and how the scores will be used. Results from the DLM assessment provide information about student achievement in relation to the Wisconsin Essential Elements. All results are completely confidential (in accordance with the Confidential Information Protection provisions of Public Law 107-346). If you have any questions, please contact ____________ at ________________. Thank you, (Name), Principal The parent(s)/guardian(s) and LEA have discussed: • The differences between the alternate achievement standards and academic content standards for the grade in which the child is enrolled, and • That the student’s achievement will be measured based on alternate achievement standards, and • How the student’s participation in alternate standards and assessment(s) may delay or otherwise affect the student from completing the requirements for a regular high school diploma. |
||||||||||||
| WY | Parent Note Statewide Alternate Assessment Participation ? I understand my student will take the WY-ALT summative assessment in place of the WY-TOPP summative assessment. ? I understand that continued participation in the WY-ALT assessment may lead to a certificate of completion instead of a general diploma. ? I understand this decision will be reviewed annually. [Parent signature] |
Table J-1. Areas Mentioned Related to English Learners or Language in Criteria Evidence for Alternate Assessment
| State | EL and Language Assessments Evidence for Criteria |
EL Considerations that May Interfere in Showing Abilities (e.g., adaptive tests) |
Use Assessments in Student’s First Language |
One-year
Exemption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL* | ||||
| AK* | ||||
| AZ | X | X | ||
| AR | X | |||
| CA | X | |||
| CO | X | |||
| CT | X | |||
| DE | X | X | ||
| DC | X | |||
| FL* | ||||
| GA | X | |||
| HI | X | |||
| ID* | ||||
| IL* | ||||
| IN | X | X | ||
| IA* | ||||
| KS | X | |||
| KY | X | X | ||
| LA | X | |||
| ME | X | |||
| MD | X | X | ||
| MA* | ||||
| MI* | ||||
| MN* | ||||
| MS* | ||||
| MO | X | |||
| MT | X | |||
| NE | X | |||
| NV* | ||||
| NH* | ||||
| NJ* | ||||
| NM* | ||||
| NY* | ||||
| NC* | ||||
| ND* | ||||
| OH* | ||||
| OK* | ||||
| OR* | ||||
| PA | X | |||
| RI | X | |||
| SC | X | |||
| SD | X | X | ||
| TN | X | X | ||
| TX* | ||||
| UT* | ||||
| VT* | ||||
| VA* | ||||
| WA* | ||||
| WV* | ||||
| WI* | ||||
| WY* | ||||
| Total | 15 | 3 | 10 | 2 |
N=51
*English learners or language were not mentioned in criteria for state’s AA-AAAS.
Table J-2. Nature of English Learner Mentions
| State | English Learner Text |
|---|---|
| AL* | |
| AK* | |
| AZ | Sources of Evidence for Criterion 1 (check if used) • Results of language assessments including English Learner (EL) language assessments if applicable How do I know if MSAA is appropriate for an EL with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? An EL should be considered for the alternate assessment if (a) his/her intellectual functioning indicates a significant cognitive disability using assessments in his/her home language as appropriate, and (b) he/she meets the MSAA participation guidelines. Screening and progress through the stages of the AZELLA provide evidence for consideration. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of the results of these assessments, alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a significant cognitive disability. If an EL with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessment, he/she should take the general assessment with accommodations as appropriate. |
| AR | How do I know if the Arkansas Alternate Assessment is appropriate for an EL student with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? An EL student should be considered for the alternate assessment if (a) his/her intellectual functioning indicates a most significant cognitive disability, and (b) he/she meets the other participation criteria for the Arkansas Alternate Assessment. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assessments alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a significant cognitive disability. If an EL student with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessment, he/she should take the general assessment with accommodations as appropriate. |
| CA | In list of sources of evidence for criterion 1: • Language assessments, including English learner (EL) language assessments, if applicable |
| CO* | |
| CT | Considerations: • Records that include results of cognitive testing, adaptive behavior assessments, achievement tests, districtwide assessments, and English learner assessments, if applicable. |
| DE | IEP Teams must use various data sets in review of a student’s eligibility to take the Alternate Assessment which could include but is not limited to:
• Speech and Language assessments that determine expressive/receptive language communication status. How do I know if the alternate assessment is appropriate for an ELL with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? An ELL should be considered for the alternate assessment if (a) their intellectual functioning indicates a most significant cognitive disability using assessments in their home language as appropriate, and (b) they meet the other participation guidelines for the alternate assessment. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assessments, alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a most significant cognitive disability. If an ELL with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessment, he/she should take the general assessment with accommodations as appropriate. |
| DC | In list of sources of evidence for criterion 1:
• Results of language assessments including English language learner (ELL) language assessments if applicable |
| FL | The assessment instrument used to measure the student’s global level of cognitive functioning was selected to limit the adverse impact of already-identified limitations and impairments (e.g., language acquisition, mode of communication, culture, hearing, vision, orthopedic functioning, hypersensitivities and distractibility). |
| GA | In list of sources of evidence for criterion 3:
• Results of language assessments including English Learner (EL) assessments, if applicable |
| HI | Students Who Will Not Participate:
An English Learner (EL) Program student whose first enrollment in a U.S. school was within this school year, based on the information provided by their parents when the students were enrolled. o EL students who enrolled in a U.S. school for the first time within the last twelve months prior to the beginning of testing have a one-time exemption from their state’s English language proficiency assessment if they complete the WIDA Access tests. Test Coordinators are asked to work with their EL coordinator, office staff, or registrar to confirm the accuracy of the first year EL information entered in Infinite Campus before confirming a student’s status in TIDE. o This exemption applies to the HSA-Alt English Language Arts (ELA) assessment only. EL students who meet this requirement must still participate in the HSA-Alt Mathematics assessment (for students in Grades 3-8 and 11) and the HSA-Alt Science (NGSS) assessment (for students in Grades 5, 8 and 11). |
| ID* | |
| IL* | |
| IN | Consider the following:
• Results of individual cognitive ability tests, adaptive behavior skills assessments, achievement tests, district-wide alternate assessments, and English Learner (EL) assessments How do I know if the alternate assessment is appropriate for an English Learner (EL) with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? An EL should be considered for the alternate assessment if: (a) intellectual functioning indicates a significant intellectual disability using assessments in the home language as appropriate, and (b) the student meets the other participation guidelines for the alternate assessment. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assessments, alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a significant intellectual disability. If an EL with a disability does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessment, the student should take the general assessment with accommodations as appropriate. The EL Specialist should be present in the CCC meeting for any EL when participation in the alternate assessment is being discussed. |
| IA* | |
| KS | IEP Teams must use various data sets in review of a student’s eligibility to take the Alternate Assessment which could include but is not limited to:
• Speech and Language assessments that determine expressive/receptive language communication status. |
| KY | How do I know if the alternate assessment is appropriate for an English Learner (EL) with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? An EL student should be considered for the alternate assessment if (a) his/her intellectual functioning indicates a significant cognitive disability using assessments in his/her home language as appropriate, and (b) he/she meets the other participation guidelines for the alternate assessment. Intercultural Competence Considerations should be taken into account for EL students. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assessments, alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a significant cognitive disability. If an EL student with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessment, he/she should take the general assessment with accommodations as appropriate. |
| LA | How do teams determine if the alternate assessment is appropriate for an English language learner with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills?
An English language learner should be considered for the alternate assessment if the student’s cognitive functioning indicates a significant cognitive disability using assessments in the student’s home language as appropriate, and the student meets the other participation guidelines for the alternate assessment. Assessments should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assessments, alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a student with a significant cognitive disability. If an English language learner with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessment, he/she should take the general assessment with accommodations as appropriate. |
| ME | In list of sources of evidence for criterion one:
• Results of language assessments including English learner (EL) language assessments if applicable |
| MD | In list of considerations:
• English language proficiency assessment (if applicable) How do I know if the Maryland Alternate Assessments are appropriate for an English Learner (EL) with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? An English Learner should be considered for the alternate assessment if his/her intellectual functioning indicates a significant cognitive disability using assessments in his/her spoken language as appropriate and he/she meets the other participation criteria for the Maryland Alternate Assessments. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assessments, alongside progress on goals and objectives in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a significant cognitive disability. If an EL with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessments, he/she should take the general assessments with or without accommodations as appropriate. EL status alone is not appropriate to consider as criteria for participation in the alternate assessments. |
| MA* | |
| MI* | |
| MN* | |
| MS* | |
| MO | While IDEA does not provide any guidance on determining the most significant cognitive disabilities, it does state, under Section 300.304(3)(c)(1) “Assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a child under this part— (i) are selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; (ii) are provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer; (iii) are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; (iv) are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and, (v) are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments. |
| MT | Q: How do I know if the Alternate Assessment content is appropriate for an EL with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? A: EL students should be considered for the Alternate Assessment if (a) their intellectual functioning indicates a significant cognitive disability using assessments in their home language as appropriate, and (b) they meet the criteria above in Table 7. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of the results of these assessments, alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a significant cognitive disability. If an EL with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the Alternate Assessment, then they should take the general assessment with language support and accommodations as appropriate. |
| NE | Listed in sources of evidence for criterion one:
• Language assessments include EL language assessment if applicable |
| NV* | |
| NH* | |
| NJ* | |
| NM* | |
| NY* | |
| NC* | |
| ND* | |
| OH* | |
| OK* | |
| OR* | |
| PA | How do English Learner students participate in the PASA?
Students in their first year in the United States are not required to participate in all state assessments in English. They are, however, required to participate in the math and science assessments. This includes the PASA. For any language other than English, an interpreter may be used to present the PASA during the first three years that a student is categorized as an EL (English Learner) in U.S. schools. |
| RI | LIST 1: GOOD SOURCES OF EVIDENCE AND DATA TO USE FOR ELIGIBILITY CONVERSATIONS
• Assessment data and evidence: ◦ language assessments like ACCESS for ELLs or Alternate ACCESS for ELLs • IEP information, including: ◦ Considerations for students who may be learning English as a second or other language (i.e., English language learners). |
| SC | In list of sources that IEP teams can use:
• results of English language proficiency assessments if the student is also classified as an English language learner (ELL). |
| SD | Listed in sources of evidence for criterion one:
• Results of language assessments including English language learner (ELL) language assessments if applicable IEP information including: • Considerations for students who may be learning English as a second or other language (i.e., English language learners) How do I know if the alternate assessment is appropriate for an ELL with an IEP whose language proficiency makes it difficult to assess content knowledge and skills? An ELL should be considered for the alternate assessment if (a) their intellectual functioning indicates a significant cognitive disability using assessments in their home language as appropriate, and (b) they meet the other participation guidelines for the alternate assessment. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assessments, alongside the information on goals and instruction in the student’s IEP used to determine what may or may not be a significant cognitive disability. If an ELL with an IEP does not meet the criteria for the alternate assessment, he/she should take the general assessment with accommodations as appropriate. |
| TN | Additional considerations:
• Communication needs or fluent use of an augmentative, assistive communication system (Primary language fluency and skill level (English learner) and the impact of learning a second language on the student’s performance.) Possible sources of data the IEP team may consider reviewing include: psychological evaluation reports, results of individual cognitive ability tests, adaptive behavior skills data, results of individual or group-administered achievement assessments, district-wide alternate assessments, individual reading assessments, findings of communication or language proficiency assessments, teacher-collected data from classroom observations, progress monitoring data, and IEPs. |
| TX* | |
| UT* | |
| VT* | |
| VA* | |
| WA* | |
| WV* | |
| WI* | |
| WY* |
N=51
*State did not have mentions of English learners or language in criteria for AA-AAAS.
Table K-1. Types of Exemption and Non-Exemptions
| State | Medical Exemption | One-Year English Learner Exemption | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | ||
| AK* | |||
| AZ* | |||
| AR* | |||
| CA* | |||
| CO* | |||
| CT | X | ||
| DE | X | X | |
| DC* | |||
| FL* | |||
| GA* | |||
| HI | X | X | X |
| ID* | |||
| IL* | |||
| IN* | |||
| IA* | |||
| KS | X | X | |
| KY | X | ||
| LA* | |||
| ME* | |||
| MD* | |||
| MA | X | ||
| MI* | |||
| MN | X | ||
| MS* | |||
| MO* | |||
| MT | X | X | |
| NE* | |||
| NV* | |||
| NH* | |||
| NJ | X | ||
| NM* | |||
| NY* | |||
| NC* | |||
| ND* | |||
| OH | X | ||
| OK* | |||
| OR* | |||
| PA* | |||
| RI* | |||
| SC* | |||
| SD* | |||
| TN* | |||
| TX | X | ||
| UT* | |||
| VT* | |||
| VA* | |||
| WA* | |||
| WV | X | ||
| WI* | |||
| WY | X | ||
| Total | 8 | 3 | 8 |
N=51
*State did not have exemption or non-exemption texts.
Table K-2. Types of Exemption and Non-Exemptions
| State | Types of Exemption and Non-Exemptions |
|---|---|
| AL | The Alabama State Board of Education feels strongly that the state’s assessment program provides invaluable information to students, their parents, their teachers, and others who work with them in assuring they are ready for graduation. The ALSDE continues to receive inquiries regarding parents requesting that their children “opt out” of the state-approved assessments. ALSDE does not have a recognized process or approved form for this action. |
| AK* | |
| AZ* | |
| AR* | |
| CA* | |
| CO* | |
| CT | Students with Temporary Medical Conditions Attending School Every year during statewide testing, there are cases of students with various medical conditions that affect their ability to participate in testing. In some cases, the student may have a note from a medical professional stating that the student should be excused from participating in testing. State law stipulates that all public school students in the specified grades who receive educational services must participate in statewide assessments. In some cases, a student may have been injured or the student’s medical condition may temporarily impact his or her ability to complete the test (e.g., broken hand or arm, concussion). Under the law, there is no exemption from administering the statewide test to these students. Therefore, to test the injured student, the first option would be to delay testing until later in the test administration window to give the student enough time to recover. A student who is injured in the days just before or during test administration may have a temporary disability, and may be eligible for accommodations on statewide testing using the Special Documented Accommodations Petition Process. (See Appendix C) If the student is determined eligible for accommodations having received an approval for the Special Documented Accommodation Petition the student may participate in statewide assessments using the approved accommodations. Contact the Performance Office to discuss options. Definition: In Connecticut, the exemption determination for a medical emergency rests primarily on the following criteria: The student is unable to attend school and is medically/emotionally unavailable for homebound/hospitalized instruction. Students who are hospitalized or homebound due to illness should be tested unless there are medical constraints. These students can have the test administered at home or in the hospital provided the test is administered by a certified school staff member who is fully trained in the proper test administration and security procedures for the Smarter Balanced Assessments, NGSS, Connecticut SAT School Day, CTAA, and CTAS. In rare cases, there may be a student who experiences a medical emergency just prior to (or during) the testing window. There is a process whereby, the student may receive an exemption from testing due to the emergency nature of the medical condition, if the criteria for exemption are met. |
| DE | Parent Withdrawals from English Learner Services Some students are evaluated and have received English learner services but are withdrawn from these services by their parent or guardian. This means that, although these students qualify as an English learner, the parent or guardian chooses not to have the students continue to receive English learner services. If a student has been identified, but the parent or guardian withdraws the student from services, the student may still receive testing accommodations or supports, including but not limited to the EL exemption (exemption from the DeSSA ELA test and SAT Reading). Students must meet the criteria on pages 17 and 18 in order to receive an exemption from ELA as a recently arrived EL. Criteria for Receiving an Exemption from the DeSSA ELA/Literacy, SAT Reading or DeSSA-Alt ELA If an EL student receives an exemption, he or she is not required to take the DeSSA ELA/Literacy Assessment, SAT reading, or the DeSSA-Alt ELA assessment. Students receiving an exemption should have the EL exemption for ELA entered into DeSSA TIDE student settings. SAT Exemptions are entered through the District Test Coordinators. The following are the criteria for receiving an exemption from these language arts tests: 1. The student has not been transitioned or exited; 2. It is the student’s first year of enrollment in U.S. schools. An EL student is considered to be in the first year of enrollment in U.S. schools or “recently arrived” if (a) the student’s “Immigrant date” (a field in the EL database) is less than 1 year from the last day of the DeSSA ELA test window, SAT test day, or DeSSA-Alt ELA test window (whichever test the student is to take) or (b) the student has been enrolled in a US state school from a US territory such as Puerto Rico less than 1 year from the last day of the DeSSA ELA test window, SAT test day, or DeSSA-Alt ELA test window (whichever test the student is to take) The DDOE defines recently arrived ELs as an EL whose enrollment in any public school in the United States has been less than 12 cumulative months (not consecutive). The decision to grant an exemption is made on an individual basis. Valid Exemptions • 1st Year EL (for DeSSA ELA) • Distance to an off-site location is an extreme burden on the sending LEA. • Limited capacity with sending LEA or receiving LEA. • Secure computer not available at receiving institution. • Student has a documented health concern. Student is newly enrolled and start date is within the last two weeks of the testing window. |
| DC* | |
| FL* | |
| GA* | |
| HI | Students Who Will Not Participate For 2021-2022, the following student populations will not participate in the Hawaii State Alternate Assessments. Note: Schools must refer to the 2021-2022 Guide to Strive HI school accountability to obtain information about the participation requirements for each student population. • A student who has a significant medical emergency. ◦ A student who has a significant medical emergency must have a physician’s signed report that describes the medical emergency that causes the student to be deemed medically unable to participate in the Hawaii State Alternate Assessments during the appropriate testing windows. The definition of a physician includes a doctor of medicine licensed under Chapter 453, Hawaii Revised Statutes or the applicable laws of the state where the student has been placed in order to implement the student’s IEP; an osteopath licensed under Chapter 460, Hawaii Revised Statutes or the applicable laws of the state where the student has been placed in order to implement the student’s IEP; or a psychologist licensed under (i) chapter 465, Hawaii Revised Statutes, or (ii) the applicable laws of the state where the student has been placed in order to implement the student’s IEP • An English Learner (EL) Program student whose first enrollment in a U.S. school was within this school year, based on the information provided by their parents when the students were enrolled. ◦ EL students who enrolled in a U.S. school for the first time within the last twelve months prior to the beginning of testing have a one-time exemption from their state’s English language proficiency assessment if they complete the WIDA Access tests. Test Coordinators are asked to work with their EL coordinator, office staff, or registrar to confirm the accuracy of the first year EL information entered in Infinite Campus before confirming a student’s status in TIDE. ◦ This exemption applies to the HSA-Alt English Language Arts (ELA) assessment only. EL students who meet this requirement must still participate in the HSA-Alt Mathematics assessment (for students in Grades 3-8 and 11) and the HSA-Alt Science (NGSS) assessment (for students in Grades 5, 8 and 11). • A student who is receiving services at an out-of-state residential program. ◦ Students in out-of-state residential programs who are approved by the student’s IEP or 504 Plan team, a hearings officer, or a judge cannot be tested because the Department of Education will not allow a student to be tested outside the state. • A student who meets the requirements of Regulation 4140, Exceptions to Compulsory School Attendance. ◦ These students will not be tested if they withdraw from the Hawaii public school and public charter school system. |
| ID* | . |
| IL* | |
| IN* | |
| IA* | |
| KS | Two special circumstance codes will count against the district’s required 95% participation rate. The special circumstance codes for other and catastrophic illness or accident must be approved by KSDE. Those that are approved will be exempt and will not count against the district’s required 95% participation rate. All other SC codes are counted as not tested. |
| KY | Medical Non-participation
Form: https://education.ky.gov/AA/distsupp/Documents/MedicalNonparticipationForm.pdf |
| LA* | |
| ME* | |
| MD* | |
| MA | 1. Is there a date beyond which a transfer student would be exempt from participating in the MCAS-Alt? A. No, there is no cut-off date beyond which a student is exempt from the assessment, unless the student moves in after the submission deadline of March 31, 2023. |
| MI* | |
| MN | The current reauthorization of both the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that students with disabilities participate in the statewide assessments that are designed to hold schools accountable for the academic performance of all students. In order to uphold these federal laws and their goals of inclusion of all students in academic standards, instruction and assessments, there are no participation exemptions from statewide assessments based on disability, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. IEP teams or 504 plan teams determine the appropriate manner for students with disabilities to participate in statewide assessments. |
| MS* | |
| MO* | |
| MT | Note: Students cannot be exempted from state testing through an IEP, 504 Plan, and/or an EL designation.
Non-Participation Reporting As defined in Chapter 3, all students must participate in state assessments either with or without accommodations, or when the participation criteria is met for Alternate Assessments (ARM 10.56.104(1)). There are rare and unique situations in which a student is unable to participate in state assessments due to a documented, significant, and incapacitating condition, or a medical emergency that extends across the entire (or remaining) test window. If the student can participate in learning activities and education, either in their school, home, or outplacement facility, then the student is able to participate in state assessments. To apply for a medical exemption as shown in Figure 4 in conjunction with the Early Stopping Rule, school districts must gather documentation that the student meets two criteria: 1. The student’s situation is so severe that the child cannot participate in any learning or educational activities in any setting (e.g., home, school, or outplacement facility); and 2. The student cannot participate in any tests, even with adjustments (e.g., accommodations or supports) that could allow them to participate. Each reason for non-participation (due to medical reasons) is handled by the OPI on a case-by-case basis. The OPI reserves the right to handle these non-participation reports on an individualized basis and will use the reported reason to determine whether or not the situation reported qualifies for medical exemption. Anything not considered a medical exemption will be reported as non-participation for both state and federal accountability purposes. For more information on the OPI’s Medical Exemption Policy, read the MontCAS Policies and Procedures for Participation in State Assessments. |
| NE* | |
| NV* | |
| NH* | |
| NJ | If a student entered the United States after June 1 of the calendar year prior to the test administration and is currently enrolled in a language assistance program, this ELL student is exempt from taking the DLM ELA assessment. |
| NM* | |
| NY* | |
| NC* | |
| ND* | |
| OH | When is a Medical Waiver Appropriate? The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) recognizes that there are circumstances when it is not possible for the entire student body to participate in testing. For this reason, USDOE allows states to exclude, for accountability purposes, students who “…cannot be assessed at any time during the testing window due to a significant medical emergency (for example, a student is hospitalized due to an accident).” For the purpose of calculating the participation rate, a student experiencing such a significant medical emergency is eligible for a participation waiver. Since a significant medical emergency is not foreseeable, medical waivers are, by nature, requested and evaluated annually. USDOE allows states to define those circumstances that represent a significant medical emergency. Ohio considers a significant medical emergency that occurs immediately preceding or during testing as a circumstance that interferes with a student participating in testing and for which no alternate arrangements can be made to assess the student. It is important to differentiate between a “medical emergency” as described above and a “medical condition.” A “medical condition” is a situation in which a student has an ongoing illness. For a student with an ongoing medical condition, a district is still obligated to educate and appropriately test the student – whether it be pursuant to an individualized education program (IEP) or a Section 504 Plan. The determination to place a student on an IEP or a Section 504 Plan due to illness or medical condition does not exempt the student from participating in statewide tests and such a student is subject to the same requirements to obtain a medical waiver as any other student. Requests for medical waivers must be submitted to the Ohio Department of Education’s Office of Accountability for review and approval. If you have questions and want to determine if the submission of a request for a medical waiver is appropriate, please contact Jackie Seward at (614) 387-7570 or email Jackie.Seward@education.ohio.gov. Note: Unless you receive that your request for a medical waiver is approved, you should not report the student with a “Score not Reported” element of “M” (for medical emergency). |
| OK* | |
| OR* | |
| PA* | |
| RI* | |
| SC* | |
| SD* | |
| TN* | |
| TX | Medical Exception
Eligibility Criteria: If the admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee has previously determined that a student meets the eligibility criteria for State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) Alternate 2 and Texas English Language Proficiency Assessment System (TELPAS) Alternate and the student is being considered for a medical exception designation, the ARD committee, in conjunction with the language proficiency assessment committee (LPAC) as necessary, must discuss the eligibility criteria below. At least one of the specific medical conditions listed below should describe the medical condition of the student. Additionally, the ARD committee must discuss the three assurances. All of these assurances must be initialed by district personnel in order for the student to receive a medical exception. Students qualifying for a medical exception will not be required to participate in the administration of STAAR Alternate 2 and TELPAS Alternate for any course, subject, or domain for which they are enrolled in the current year. A score code of ‘M’ must be recorded for all tests the student would have taken. Assessment decisions must be communicated to necessary personnel. Specific Medical Condition Eligibility Criteria: • The student is unable to respond to test questions due to a terminal or degenerative illness. • The student is receiving extensive short-term medical treatment due to a medical emergency or serious injury in an accident. • The student is unable to interact with peers or educators without risk of infection or contamination to himself/herself or others. • The student is unable to receive sufficient or consistent homebound services due to medical issues. |
| UT* | |
| VT* | |
| VA* | |
| WA* | |
| WV | Medical Emergency/Medically Fragile Exemptions Policy 2340 requires all students participate in state assessments. Similarly, federal law requires all students, including students with disabilities and English learners, be assessed through each state’s assessment system. However, if a student has an acute medical emergency (e.g., coma, chemotherapy, etc.) that precludes him or her from participating in the statewide assessments, an exception can be granted. A request for participation rate exemption can be submitted to the WVDE for review. Each request will be reviewed by the WVDE Assessment Services to determine whether the request and the circumstances warrant an exemption from participation. Additional information may be requested to better understand the situation to decide for accountability purposes. Any request applies only to the accountability year of the request. Information that will need to be submitted for review should include: • Brief description of the emergency • Date(s) of the emergency • Date(s) the assessment is scheduled to be administered at the school • Student attendance with attendance codes for the year • Confirmation a doctor’s note is on file. Hospitalization and severe, debilitating illness are two examples of “approved” medical emergencies, whereas non-limiting illnesses and typical pregnancies are examples of situations that would not be approved. Students receiving homebound instruction are to be provided the opportunity to participate in their assessment(s), if their health allows. Homebound instructors can be trained to administer most assessments. Please contact the WVDE Assessment Services with any questions by phone at 304-558-8098. |
| WI* | |
| WY | Are districts exempt from testing students who do not respond? No. All students are required by federal and state law to participate in statewide testing. If a student does not respond to any five consecutive items on a test, beginning with items 1-5, the student can end the test early. This is referred to as the Early Stopping Rule. Administration of at least the first five items is required. Each individual item (items 1-5) for each subject must be attempted multiple times across the entirety of the testing window. During each concerted administration attempt, the ALT-TA should select the No Response option in the Student Interface for the item(s) that have been administered multiple times but to which the student has not responded, pause the test and exit out of the Test Delivery System. Important Note: If the No Response option is selected for a particular item(s) and the test is paused for longer than 20 minutes prior to the next administration attempt, the test will resume starting at the last unanswered item. Once the student and Test Administrator have proceeded beyond items 1–5 on the WY-ALT, they will not be able to return to these items for any reason, and therefore will not be able to change their responses after moving into the second test segment. If the student does not respond to the first five items on the test after multiple administration attempts, the ALT-TA must select the No Response option in the Test Delivery System for those first five items, then click the Next button. The system will then automatically engage the Early Stopping Rule and end the test for the student, at which point the ALT-TA may submit the test. If the student responds to one of the first five items on the test but not to five consecutive items after item 1, the student may still end the test early. For example, if the student responds to the first item but does not respond to five consecutive items beginning with item 2, that student may end the test early. During each concerted administration attempt, the ALT-TA should select the No Response option for the item(s) which have been administered multiple times but for which the student has made no response, pause the test, and exit out of the Test Delivery System. If the student does not respond to these five items on the test after multiple administration attempts, the ALT-TA must then pause the test, exit out of the Test Delivery System, and report the Early Stopping Rule. The ALT-TA should NOT select the No Response option for the rest of the test items that were not administered to the student. If the early stopping rule is applied at any time during the test administration, the ALT-TA will need to contact the Help Desk with the student’s WISER ID, the subject in which the stopping rule was applied and the dates on which the test administration was attempted. |
N=51
*State did not have exemption or non-exemption texts.
Table L-1. Content Areas for Participation in AA-AAAS
| State | Student Takes Either General or AA-AAAS for All Content Areas |
Choose General or AA-AAAS for Each Content Area Separately |
|---|---|---|
| AL* | ||
| AK | X | |
| AZ | X | |
| AR* | ||
| CA* | ||
| CO | X | |
| CT* | ||
| DE | X | |
| DC | X | |
| FL* | ||
| GA* | ||
| HI* | ||
| ID | X | |
| IL* | ||
| IN* | ||
| IA | X | |
| KS | X | |
| KY* | ||
| LA* | ||
| ME | X | |
| MD | X | |
| MA | X | |
| MI | X | |
| MN* | ||
| MS* | ||
| MO* | ||
| MT* | ||
| NE* | ||
| NV* | ||
| NH* | ||
| NJ | X | |
| NM | X | |
| NY | X | |
| NC | X | |
| ND | X | |
| OH | X | |
| OK* | ||
| OR | X | |
| PA | X | |
| RI* | ||
| SC* | ||
| SD | X | |
| TN* | ||
| TX* | ||
| UT | X | |
| VT* | ||
| VA* | ||
| WA | X | |
| WV* | ||
| WI | X | |
| WY | X | |
| Total | 20 | 5 |
*State did not have information about whether students must take either the alternate or the general assessment for all content areas.
Details about choosing which content areas for participation are in Table L-2.
Table L-2. Text for Content Areas
| State | Content Areas |
|---|---|
| AL* | |
| AK | Students eligible for the alternate assessment must take the assessment in all the content areas: English language arts, mathematics, and science (if applicable). |
| AZ | A student deemed eligible must participate in an alternate assessment in all content areas for the enrolled grade level. |
| AR* | |
| CA* | |
| CO | *Dual assessment is NOT an option beginning with the 2014-15 school year. If a student meets the guidelines to receive instruction on alternate standards and take alternate assessment based upon those alternate standards, then ALL tested content areas or other state-mandated assessments required for the student’s enrolled grade level, will be ALTERNATE assessments. |
| CT* | |
| DE | Is eligibility being considered for participation in ALL content areas? If you answered NO to any of the above questions, The student is not eligible for the alternate assessment.
A student must have an IEP in order to participate in the DeSSA-Alt. Assessment. If the IEP team determines that a student is eligible to participate in the alternate assessment, the student must be eligibile to participate in ALL the content areas of the alternate assessment. A student who does not meet ALL the criteria for ALL content areas must participate in the DeSSA/SAT general education assessments with/without accommodations. Participation and Exemption Decisions Students who are dually identified must take content area tests in reading and mathematics to measure academic achievement and must also take tests in reading, writing, speaking, and listening to measure English language acquisition. To measure academic achievement, students take either the general assessments or the alternate assessments. The decision regarding whether to take the general test or the alternate test is made separately for each individual content area. SwD/ELS may be eligible for an exemption from ELA and SAT testing if they are recently arrived to the country (see pages 18 and 19). |
| DC | *Note: The criteria for participation in the DC Alternate Assessment reflect the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability. All content areas should be considered when determining who should participate in this assessment. Thus, a student who participates in the DC Alternate Assessment participates in this assessment for all content areas. |
| FL* | |
| GA* | |
| HI* | |
| ID | Only those students with significant cognitive impairments who meet all four participation criteria may qualify to take the IDAA. Students who qualify for the IDAA will take it in all content areas: English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science (in required grades). Students may not qualify to take the IDAA in one content area, then take the ISAT in another content area. |
| IL* | |
| IN* | |
| IA | The criteria for participation in Iowa’s Alternate Assessments reflect the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability. IEP teams must select the alternate assessment as the only option for all subject content areas assessed. Students, whose IEP teams determine participation in Iowa’s Alternate Assessments, will be assessed using the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment (DLM), the Early Literacy Alternate Assessment (EL AA), and the Alternate English Language Proficiency Assessment (Alt ELPA21) based on assessment requirements. |
| KS | DLM is used as the assessment tool in ALL content areas during the statewide student assessments. |
| KY* | |
| LA* | |
| ME | The criteria for student participation in the Test reflect the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability. A student deemed eligible must participate in an alternate assessment in all content areas for the enrolled grade level. |
| MD | The criteria for participation in the alternate assessments and/or alternate instructional standards reflect the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability. All content areas should be considered when determining who should participate. A student who participates in the Alternate Assessments participates in the assessments for all content areas of English/language arts, Mathematics, and Science. |
| MA | The decision chart shown below may be used by IEP teams and 504 plan coordinators to make annual decisions regarding appropriate student participation in MCAS. Make separate decisions in each content area being assessed: ELA, mathematics, and science and technology/engineering. |
| MI | IEP teams have the flexibility to determine if a student should be assessed in different content areas with the alternate assessment (MI-Access) and the general assessment (M-STEP). This decision is made by the IEP team and based on state assessment selection guidelines as well as the student’s overall instructional routines. |
| MN* | |
| MS* | |
| MO* | |
| MT* | |
| NE* | |
| NV* | |
| NH* | |
| NJ | Indicate which assessment the student will be taking in each content area. In accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e)7, the IEP must document the determination as to whether a student will participate in the general statewide assessment with accommodations or the alternate assessment. |
| NM | Each state participating in the DLM alternate assessment will determine whether its IEP teams must select alternate assessment as the appropriate option for all subjects or whether teams may decide a student’s participation separately for each subject. |
| NY | The process of determining eligibility begins with the Committee on Special Education (CSE). The CSE determines on an individual basis whether the student will participate in: • the State’s general assessment with or without accommodations; • the State’s alternate assessment with or without accommodations; or • a combination of the State’s general assessment for some content areas and the State’s alternate assessment for other content areas |
| NC | If the IEP team determines, based on the following eligibility criteria, that the NCEXTEND1 is the most appropriate assessment for a student, then that student must be assessed using the NCEXTEND1 in all content areas assessed at that grade level. |
| ND | The criteria for participation in North Dakota’s Alternate Assessment requires IEP teams to consider the following questions. IEP teams must select alternate assessment for all content areas assessed (English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science). Students who participate in North Dakota’s Alternate Assessments will not participate in the North Dakota State Assessment. |
| OH | Can students participate in the general assessment in one content area (for example, mathematics) and participate in the AASCD in another content area (for example, ELA)? No. If a student can participate in any of the general tests, they do not have a most significant cognitive disability and do not qualify for the AASCD. They must take all of the general tests with accommodations as needed. As many students as possible should participate in the general tests. |
| OK* | |
| OR | Starting 9/2015, Oregon Individual Education Plan (IEP) teams will be required to select the Oregon’s Extended Assessment as the only option for all subject areas assessed. Students who participate in Oregon’s Extended Assessment will not participate in Oregon’s general assessments. This reflects a significant change from previous policy which permitted a student to participate in either test or both. This change in criteria is intended to take into account the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability and allows the state’s assessment models to appropriately measure the student populations they were designed to measure. |
| PA | Can the IEP team exempt or opt a student out of taking the PASA? No. All students must be assessed under federal requirements for accountability purposes. Students with IEPs are assessed through either the PSSA, the Keystones, or the PASA as determined by their IEP team. Per Pennsylvania School Code, a parent can request to have their child be opted out of the state assessment if they feel it conflicts with their religious beliefs. However, this not an IEP team decision. If a parent requests a religious opt out, they must follow the process for religious exemption with school administrators, and the IEP team must still address the state assessment section of the IEP as if the child were taking the test. |
| RI* | |
| SC* | |
| SD | The criteria for participation in the Alternate Assessment reflect the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability. All content areas should be considered when determining who should participate in this assessment. Thus, a student who participates in the Alternate Assessment participates in all content areas. |
| TN* | |
| TX* | |
| UT | The criteria for participation in alternate assessments reflects the pervasive nature of a significant cognitive disability. All content areas should be considered when determining eligibility for these assessments. Thus, a student who participates in alternate assessments, participates in these assessments for all content areas (ELA, Math, and Science). |
| VT* | |
| VA* | |
| WA | Alternate assessments are intended for those student for whom, even with appropriate accommodations, are unable to access the Smarter Balanced ELA and mathematics tests, and the WCAS. Students meeting criteria shall take the WA-AIM in all content areas required for the student’s enrolled grade level. The decision that a student needs to participate in an alternate assessment would occur for approximately 1% of the total tested population. For example, if the total tested population in a school district were 4,000, then 40 students would represent 1% of the total tested population. |
| WV* | |
| WI | IEP teams are responsible for deciding whether students with disabilities will participate in general education assessments with or without testing accommodations, or in the alternate assessment with or without accommodations. In a given year, a student must participate in either all general education assessments or all alternate assessments, not parts of both. |
| WY | Can students participate in the general assessment in one content area (e.g., mathematics) and participate in the WY-ALT in another content area (e.g., ELA)? No. If a student can participate in any part of the general assessment, then he or she should take the entire general assessment with accommodations, as needed. As many students as possible should participate in the general assessment. |
N=51
*State did not have information about whether students must take either the alternate or the general assessment for all content areas.