Mari Quanbeck, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Andrew R. Hinkle
June 2024
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., & Hinkle, A. R. (2024). Two pieces of a puzzle: The 95% participation requirement in state plans and states’ opt-out policies(NCEO Report 443). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), commonly known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments used for accountability. Additionally, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires the participation of all students with disabilities in all statewide assessment administrations. ESEA also requires that states test at least 95% of all students, as well as 95% of each student subgroup, including students with disabilities, on the reading and mathematics assessments that are used for accountability purposes. In their consolidated state plans, states must address how they factor the 95% participation requirement into their statewide accountability systems, including a method for calculating the percentage of students who participate in statewide assessments.
The 2015 reauthorization of ESEA also limits participation in the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) to 1.0% of a state’s tested population. The AA-AAAS is designed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. States may submit a waiver request to the U.S. Department of Education if they anticipate exceeding 1% limit. One eligibility criterion for the waiver requires states to show that at least 95% of all students, as well as 95% of students with disabilities, participated in the required state assessments used for accountability.
Some parents choose to withdraw their children from statewide testing. Parental opt-out occurs for a variety of reasons and poses an additional challenge for states to reach the required 95% participation rate. There is wide variation across states in the percentage of students whose parents opt them out of the assessments, and many states have developed opt-out policies in response.
This report presents the findings of an analysis of states’ ESEA Consolidated State Plans in regards to the 95% participation requirement. It examines how this requirement is factored into states’ accountability systems. The analysis also identifies which content areas the 95% requirement applies to in each state; federal regulations place this requirement on both reading and mathematics for all states, but some states may hold additional content areas, such as science or social studies, to the same requirement. Additionally, states’ opt-out policies were analyzed to explore how different states addressed assessment opt-out.
This study found that although all 50 states plus the District of Columbia addressed the 95% participation requirement in their state plans, only 28 states included consequences of failing to meet the requirement. The most common consequences included requiring the development of an improvement plan, penalties such as dropping a grade level in the accountability system, and monitoring or audits conducted by the state. Ten states also indicated that consequences would escalate over multiple years for districts or schools that continued to not meet the participation requirement. The two most frequent methods of factoring participation rates into proficiency calculations were to adjust the denominator to equal 95% and to count non-participants as non-proficient. While 21 states explicitly indicated which content areas were to be held to the 95% participation requirement, only three states included additional content areas besides reading and mathematics.
Information about opt-out policies was found on state websites or in state plans for 40 states. Of these states, 13 states prohibited opt-out, and 11 allowed opt-out. Additionally, 13 states addressed opt-out but had no state policy.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires that all students, including students with disabilities, are included in statewide assessments used for accountability. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) also requires the participation of students with disabilities in all statewide assessment administrations (Katanyoutanant et al., 2021). ESEA includes requirements related to states’ assessment participation rates, including the requirement that states test at least 95% of all students, as well as 95% of each student subgroup, including students with disabilities and English learners, on the reading and mathematics statewide assessments used for accountability purposes. Additionally, states are required to address in their consolidated state plans how they factor the 95% participation requirement into their statewide accountability systems. The accountability systems must include a method for calculating the percentage of students who participate in statewide assessments. These percentages must be calculated for all students and for each student subgroup and must be reported in accountability report cards (Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged—Academic Assessments, 2016).
The 2015 reauthorization of ESEA also placed a cap on participation in states’ alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). This cap limits participation in the AA-AAAS to 1.0% of a state’s tested population, ensuring that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, for whom the assessment is designed, participate in the assessment (Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged—Academic Assessments, 2016). States that anticipate that they will exceed the 1.0% cap for any subject may submit a waiver request to the U.S. Department of Education for the relevant assessment. States that are seeking this waiver must demonstrate that they have made substantial progress toward reducing the percentage of students taking the AA-AAAS. Additionally, to be eligible for a waiver, states must show that at least 95% of all students, as well as 95% of students with disabilities, participated in the required state assessments used for accountability (Rooney & Williams, 2023).
ESEA does not preempt a state or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in academic assessments. Some parents have withdrawn their children from statewide testing for a variety of reasons, which can make it challenging for some states to reach the required 95% participation rate. Many states have developed opt-out policies in response to the parental movement to opt students out from assessments. There is wide variation across states in the percentage of students whose parents opt them out of the assessments.
For additional details about the federal requirements, see Appendix A.
As states continue to struggle to meet the 95% participation requirement, their plans for addressing low participation rates may impact efforts to improve participation rates. This report provides an analysis of how states factored the 95% participation requirement into their statewide accountability systems as described in their ESEA Consolidated State Plans. The analysis also identifies the content areas identified in state plans for which the 95% participation requirement applies. At the federal level, states must achieve 95% participation rates for both reading/language arts and mathematics assessments for accountability purposes (§1111(c)(4)(E)(iii)), but states may choose to hold additional content area assessments (e.g., science) to the same requirement. Additionally, this report provides an overview of how states addressed assessment opt-out. Assessment opt-out continues to present challenges to states in regard to meeting the 95% participation requirement, and state-level opt-out policies may impact participation rates.
In this report, we analyzed states’ ESEA Consolidated State Plans for information about the 95% participation requirement and consequences for failing to meet the requirement, identifying common themes and components of the plans. We also analyzed the publicly available information about states’ opt-out policies, or lack thereof, to identify how many states allow assessment opt-out and how they communicate these policies to parents.
In October 2023, NCEO staff retrieved the most recently dated ESEA Consolidated State Plans for all 50 states and the District of Columbia from the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) website (https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/essa-consolidated-state-plans). The plans were all based on the Revised State Template for the Consolidated State Plan issued in March 2017, but the most recently dated state plans ranged from 2018 to 2023 depending on the updates and amendments that states made to their plans. The state plans were analyzed for information related to the 95% participation rate. This information was generally found in the Academic Achievement Indicator or the Annual Measurement of Achievement sections of the state plans.
Compiled information was coded into categories. To generate the coding categories, the state plans of all states were reviewed, and based on the information found in the plans, themes were identified, and codes were developed. When additional coding categories were identified, previously coded states were then reviewed again to determine whether the additional codes applied.
In October and November 2023, NCEO staff searched states’ department of education (DOE) websites for information related to assessment opt-out policies. Search terms included “assessment opt-out,” “testing opt-out,” “parent opt-out,” “parent refusal,” “opt-out,” “95% participation requirement,” “participation requirements,” and other related terms. Additionally, states’ DOE websites were searched for assessment parent information resources and law/regulation resources. Finally, a Google search was conducted using “[State name] assessment opt-out,” “[State name] testing opt-out,” “[State name] parent opt-out,” “[State name] parent refusal,” “[State name] 95% participation assessment,” “[State name] assessment participation requirements,” and other related terms. The ESEA Consolidated State Plans were also searched for information related to opt-out. Only results from state websites and ESEA Consolidated State Plans were included in the analysis. For example, if the website of a school district in a state provided information about an opt-out policy but the information could not be verified via state sources, it was not included in the findings.
For each search, the most recent search results that included opt-out information were analyzed. This information was coded into categories. To generate the coding categories, the opt-out policies of all states where policies were identified were reviewed. Based on the information found, themes were identified, and codes were developed. When additional coding categories were identified, previously coded states were then reviewed again to determine whether the additional codes applied.
All 50 states and the District of Columbia had ESEA Consolidated State Plans, and all states addressed the 95% participation requirement in their plans. Twenty-one states explicitly identified which content area assessments must have at least 95% participation. All 21 indicated that both reading/language arts and mathematics assessments are included in the participation requirement. Three states also included the science assessment in the participation requirement, and one state indicated that the U.S. history assessment must have 95% participation, as well.
Although all states addressed the 95% participation requirement in their plans, only 28 states included information about the consequences of not meeting the requirement (see Figure 1). A state was considered to have consequences for failing to meet the requirement if the state plan outlined what would happen to or be required of districts or schools that tested less than 95% of their student populations. Consequences varied in specificity and severity across states, but several themes stood out as described next. Details of the plans can be found in Tables B-1 through B-3b in Appendix B.
Figure 1. Themes of Consequences for Failing to Meet 95% Participation Requirement
Note: Twenty-eight states mentioned consequences in their State Plan. Many identified more than one consequence.
As part of their consequences, 18 of the 28 states that included consequences in their plan indicated that districts or schools that did not meet the 95% participation requirement must develop an improvement plan. States varied greatly in the level of detail describing the required improvement plan, with most states mentioning specific components (penalties, escalating consequences, monitoring and audits, support and resources, interventions, other components) that must be included and a few states (N=3) simply noting that an improvement plan is required. The required components of these plans will be discussed in greater detail in the section titled Required Components of Improvement Plans.
Roughly one-third of states (N=16) described some type of penalty that would occur for districts or schools that did not test at least 95% of students. Penalties ranged from dropping a grade in the accountability system to receiving a zero on all relevant indices. For example, Mississippi included that:
If a school/district does not meet the 95% minimum participation rate, the school/district will automatically be dropped a letter grade on the accountability system. Although subgroup participation rates will be reported in addition to all students participation on State and [local education agency] LEA report cards, this penalty in school/district grades will apply to the overall, all students participation rate only.
As another state with potential penalties, North Dakota noted that:
If a school or district were to evidence participation rates less than 95%, that school or district would be marked as demonstrating insufficient participation on the school’s or district’s public reports, indicating a reduction in program status, and requiring an improvement plan.
Out of the 28 states that mentioned consequences for districts or schools that failed to meet the 95% participation requirement, 10 states indicated that consequences would increase over multiple years if the districts or schools continued to test less than 95% of students. For example, the Nevada state plan indicated that:
Schools failing to meet the subgroup participation rate of 95 percent and failing to meet the weighted average calculated participation rate of 95 percent over the most recent two or three years for the first year will be publicly identified as failing this important metric. The [Nevada School Performance Framework] NSPF school report will prominently display the “Participation Warning” with the school index score and Star Rating. No points are deducted for a Participation Warning. If a school fails to meet the ESEA subgroup participation rate of 95 percent and fails to meet the weighted average calculated participation rate of 95 percent over the most recent two or three years for a second consecutive year, the Academic Achievement Indicator points will be deducted from this indicator and the NSPF school report will prominently display the “Participation Penalty” designation with the school index score and Star Rating. If a school fails to meet the subgroup participation rate of 95 percent and fails to meet the weighted average calculated participation rate of 95 percent over the most recent two or three years for a third consecutive year, the school will be identified as and subjected to a “Continuing Participation Penalty.” Schools designated as such will earn zero points for the Academic Achievement indicator.
Seven states included information about monitoring or audits that would occur in districts or schools that failed to meet the 95% participation requirement. For example, Arizona stated, “Schools will be monitored annually with interventions required if student participation stays under 95 percent for multiple years.”
New York addressed both schools and districts, noting that:
Seven states indicated that districts or schools that did not meet the participation requirement would receive support, resources, or assistance from the state in order to help them meet the requirement. For example, the District of Columbia (DC) stated that:
For schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation rate, [the Office of the State Superintendent of Education] OSSE will implement a system of supports, technical assistance and monitoring for [local education agencies] LEAs to support them in demonstrating improvement.
As another state that offered assistance to schools that struggled to achieve 95% participation, Michigan indicated, “Schools that continually have challenges meeting the 95% participation requirement will be eligible for additional supports through our Partnership District work.”
Six states explicitly mentioned interventions in their consequences for districts or schools that did not meet the participation requirement. Generally, these states noted that interventions would be necessary when districts or schools failed to meet the requirement for multiple years in a row. For example, Virginia stated that:
Schools that do not meet the participation rate for three or more years, or that do not demonstrate progress towards meeting the 95% participation rate, will be required to implement additional actions and interventions as appropriate.
Five states include “Other” consequences in their state plans. For example, the Colorado state plan required that the Colorado Department of Education:
Provide schools and districts with low assessment participation rates information to share with their communities regarding the state assessments, including reasons for administering the assessments and how the results are used.
Idaho’s state plan addressed both a parent component and a funding component, stating that:
The [Idaho State Department of Education] ISDE will support the school or LEA to write a parent outreach plan that addresses how it will engage parents and community members in order to meet the 95% participation minimum standard. In addition, ISDE will develop policies requiring the LEA to use a portion of its funds pursuant to 33-320, Idaho Code (Continuous Improvement Plans) for local school board and superintendent training on data-driven decision-making and assessment literacy. If a school has at least 95% participation in any year, the school is not required to submit a parent outreach plan for the following year.
Additional consequences included reductions in funding, requirements to conduct a participation rate self-assessment, and requirements to partner with stakeholders.
The 18 states that required the development of an improvement plan for districts or schools that did not meet the 95% participation requirement varied in what components must be included in the improvement plan, although there were some common components across states. Figure 2 summarizes the components required by various states. These components are described next. Additional details can be found in Tables B-1, B-4a, and B-4b in Appendix B.
Figure 2. Components of Improvement Plans
Note: 18 states required the development of an improvement plan for districts or schools that did not meet the 95% participation requirement. Some states required the inclusion of several components in the improvement plan.
Strategies and Future Steps. The most frequently required component for improvement plans was that the LEA must identify strategies and future steps to increase participation rates, with 10 states including this requirement. For example, Washington stated, “The plan must include goals and actions a district or school will take that will ensure that 95 percent of the students will participate.”
Parent/Community Engagement. Four states required that the improvement plans include information about increasing the involvement and engagement of parents or the community related to assessment participation. For example, Alaska required that:
The district must review and approve the plans for each school. The plan must be created with stakeholders and must include documentation of the communication and other efforts the school made to inform parents of the importance of participating in the statewide assessments, while recognizing parents’ rights under State law regarding their child’s participation in those assessments.
In its requirement for an improvement plan, Idaho’s state plan stated that:
The ISDE will support the school or LEA to write a parent outreach plan that addresses how it will engage parents and community members in order to meet the 95% participation minimum standard.
Identify Reasons for Low Participation. Three states required that the improvement plan identifies reasons for low participation. For example, New York’s plan stated that:
The Department will provide guidance that identifies the minimum requirements of this plan, which will include an analysis of the cause for low participation and a list of potential mitigating actions that the school will seek to pursue in the following year.
Documentation of Past Efforts. Two states (Alaska and Maine) required documentation of past efforts to increase participation rates in improvement plans. Alaska indicated that:
The plan must be created with stakeholders and must include documentation of the communication and other efforts the school made to inform parents of the importance of participating in the statewide assessments, while recognizing parents’ rights under State law regarding their child’s participation in those assessments. The plan must also document training that teachers have received in the importance of the assessments and how to communicate with parents and students regarding the assessments. The plan must document efforts made to encourage participation by all students in all subgroups, and that no students have been systematically excluded from testing.
Maine required documentation only for schools with participation below 75%, stating that:
Should a school have a participation rate of less than 75%, the school and district will be required to submit evidence of necessary steps the school or district has taken or will take to increase participation levels moving forward.
Stakeholder Involvement. Two states (Alaska and Nevada) noted that stakeholders should be involved in the development of the improvement plans. Alaska required that “the plan must be created with stakeholders,” and Nevada indicated that “schools failing to meet the 95% participation rate will be required to review, approve, and monitor an improvement plan developed in partnership with stakeholders.”
Other Components. Two states (Florida and New York) indicated some “other” components that must be included in states’ improvement plans. Florida required a review of testing practices, stating that:
Schools with a participation rate of less than 95% on statewide ELA and Mathematics assessments including [End of Courses] EOCs, must review their testing practices and submit a plan for change to achieve 95% tested in the future.
New York noted that:
[New York State Education Department] NYSED will also require districts that evidence exclusion to implement a corrective measure as part of a plan to be executed over the course of multiple years, such as the one listed below:
- Schools that persistently and substantially fail to meet the 95% participation requirement must conduct a participation rate self-assessment and develop a participation rate improvement plan. Schools that fail to meet the 95% participation requirement and that rank in the bottom 10% of participation across the State will be required to submit their self-assessment and participation rate improvement plan to NYSED for the Commissioner’s approval no less than three months prior to the next test administration period.
- Schools that implement a school improvement plan and do not improve their participation rate receive a district participation rate audit, and the district must develop an updated participation rate improvement plan for the school.
- Districts with schools that implement the district’s improvement plan and do not improve their participation rate must contract with a BOCES to conduct a participation rate audit and develop an updated participation rate improvement plan.
- Districts that have schools that implement the BOCES improvement plan and do not improve their participation rate may be required by the Department to undertake activities to raise student participation in State assessments.
When calculating proficiency rates on statewide assessments, states must factor in the participation rate of the assessments. Most states (N=42) indicated in their state plans how they planned to include participation rates in their proficiency rate calculations. The ways they included participations rates are shown in Figure 3. The ways they were included are described next. Additional details can be found in Tables B-5 and B-6 in Appendix B.
Figure 3. How States Included Participations Rate in Proficiency Rate Calculations
Note: Forty-two states included the participation rate in proficiency rate calculations. Several states include the participation rate in more than one way.
Adjusting the Denominator. The most frequent method of including participation rates in proficiency rate calculations (N=29) was to use 95 percent in the denominator of the proficiency rate calculation. For example, Iowa stated:
The numerator for participation is the number of students who scored proficient on the state assessment. The denominator of the Academic Achievement indicator will be calculated in order to ensure maximum participation in the assessment. Therefore, if participation is at or above 95 percent, the denominator will be the number of students tested. If participation is less than 95 percent, the denominator will be 95 percent of the students enrolled.
Counting Non-participants as Non-proficient.The other common method (N=15) involved counting non-participants as non-proficient or giving them the lowest possible score. For example, California indicated that:
Also, as discussed above, in the event a school or student group has a participation rate below 95 percent, California will assign the lowest possible scale score (LOSS) to the number of students needed to bring the participation rate to 95 percent.
Similarly, Wyoming noted that:
There is a participation requirement of 95%. Non-participants in excess of 5% are counted as “not proficient” on the state assessment and will be included in the Achievement indicator. The participation rate is computed for all students with an active enrollment in the school during the test window.
Other. Four states (Arizona, Idaho, Rhode Island, Nevada) indicated “Other” methods of including participation rates in the calculation of proficiency rates. These methods included enacting a penalty in the denominator and averaging participation across the most recent two or three years.
For 40 states, information about opt-out policies was identified from state websites (e.g., Department of Education websites, state websites related to law or legislature) or the state plans. Figure 4 shows how the states included opt-out in their policies. Additional details about opt-out policies can be found in Tables C-1 and C-2 in Appendix C.
Figure 4. How States Addressed Opt-out
Thirteen states explicitly prohibited assessment opt-out. For example, Kentucky stated that:
In Kentucky, districts are not permitted to honor a parent’s request to opt-out of statewide testing. Although parents have the right to opt their children out of public education by choosing home school or private school, parents do NOT have the right to pick and choose the provisions of public education with which they will comply. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires 95% participation of all students and each student group in the federally mandated state assessments.
Other states were less clear in defining whether opt-out was allowed, with 13 states indicating that there was no option or provision for opt-out but never explicitly prohibiting opt-out. For example, Vermont indicated that:
Parent requests for opt-out or refusal are addressed by local school officials. Use of the state medical exemption process for this purpose will be rejected. Federal law does not require or forbid a parental right to opt out (ESSA, 2016). The State of Vermont is committed to administering these assessments to further equity-focused work. Therefore, the State does not have an opt-out provision and the Agency of Education does not support opt-out.
Similarly, the District of Columbia stated that:
There is currently no legislation banning parents from opting out of the assessments, nor is there legislation for an opt-out process. According to the assessment policy, eligible students are required to take any state-wide assessments. A child may be marked as absent for the time the child is out of school during assessments.
Other states provided additional information about the decision. For example, Montana stated that:
In Montana, there is no “opt out” law, and state law requires all students in public and accredited nonpublic schools to participate in state testing. In accordance with ESEA-ESSA Section 1112(e)(1)(B)(ii), parents may refuse to have their child participate in state assessments; however, under Montana’s compulsory school attendance laws this refusal reason does not exist (see §20-5-103, MCA). Schools must administer state assessments with or without accommodations based on individual student needs consistent with all state and federal laws and regulations (ARM 10.56.104). Procedures to notify families and manage participation reasons for students whose families refuse should be determined at the local level (see ARM 10.56.102(6) and MontCAS Parent Corner Page).
Eleven states explicitly noted the allowance of opt-out in their policies or laws. For example, New Hampshire stated that:
New Hampshire state law permits a parent/legal guardian to exempt their student from participating in any of the required statewide assessments. School districts must ensure a form is provided for a parent/legal guardian to complete and sign in order to exempt their student from participating in the statewide assessment. A school district may use this parent opt-out form template, [or a] Spanish version of parent opt-out form template. If a parent/legal guardian exempts their student, the school district and parent must agree upon an alternative educational activity during the testing period. It is recommended that the agreed upon activity is written on the exemption form that will be signed by the parent/legal guardian and school administrator, along with an acknowledgement statement that the exempted student will not receive an individual score or summary of academic performance based on the statewide assessment.
Five states noted that parent requests for opt-out are handled at the district or school level. For example, Vermont stated, “Parent requests for opt-out or refusal are addressed by local school officials.”
Similarly, Montana noted that:
Procedures to notify families and manage participation reasons for students whose families refuse should be determined at the local level (see ARM 10.56.102(6) and MontCAS Parent Corner Page).
Two states indicated that opt-out is not allowed, although there are a few exceptions in which it would be allowable. Indiana stated that:
Indiana legislation (IC 20-32-5.1-18.8) offers some opt-out flexibility for students with disabilities if accommodations provided instructionally are unallowable on the statewide assessment.
Pennsylvania had a religious opt-out option, indicating that:
Chapter 4 of Title 22 of the Pa. Code (22 Pa. code 4.4) provides for the right of any parent/guardian to excuse his/her child from the state assessment if, upon inspection of the testing materials, he/she finds the assessment to be in conflict with his/her religious beliefs. This is the only basis under Chapter 4 rules for a parent/guardian to excuse his or her child from the statewide assessments.
Two states included the requirement that parents be informed of their rights related to opt-out. For example, Colorado indicated that:
At the beginning of each school year, a LEA that receives Title I, Part A funds must notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving these funds that the parents may request, and the LEA will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or LEA policy regarding student participation in any required assessments, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable.
Similarly, Maine stated that:
Federal statute requires that parents receive a notification indicating their right to request the districts policies and procedures regarding student participation in state and local assessments. When this information is requested, the district will provide all applicable information to families. The district should be prepared to provide families with their assessment related policies and procedures, this would include an opt-out procedure (if applicable). If the district does not have any policies or procedures regarding student participation in local and state assessments, the notification must still be issued and could then indicate that no written policies or procedures exist.
As required by federal law, all states included information in their ESEA Consolidated State Plans about how they factored the 95% participation requirement into their statewide accountability systems; slightly more than half the states (28 states) addressed in their state plans the consequences for districts or schools that failed to meet the 95% participation requirement.
Common components of consequences included: (1) escalating consequences for districts or schools that did not meet the participation requirement for multiple years in a row, (2) support and resources from the state, (3) monitoring or audits of districts or schools, (4) explicit interventions, and (5) explicit penalties such as lower ratings or poorer performance in the accountability system.
Eighteen of the 28 states that mentioned consequences in their state plan indicated that districts or schools that failed to meet the 95% participation requirement must develop an improvement plan to address the issue. The level of detail in describing the improvement plan varied widely across states. The most common components required in improvement plans included: (1) strategies and future steps to be taken to increase participation rates, (2) information about increasing the involvement and engagement of parents or the community related to assessment participation, (3) identification of reasons for low participation rates, (4) documentation of past efforts to improve participation rates, and (5) stakeholder involvement in developing the improvement plans.
More than three-quarters of states had information about assessment opt-out policies available on state-level websites or in their state plans. States varied greatly in the level of detail they provided about opt-out policies. Thirteen states explicitly prohibited assessment opt-out in their policies or laws, while another 13 indicated that there was no opt-out policy or option. Eleven states explicitly allowed assessment opt-out, and two states prohibited opt-out with a few exceptions. Five states indicated that parental requests for opting out of state assessments would be handled at the district level, and two states required that parents be informed of their rights regarding opt-out.
For this study, the most recent versions of states’ ESEA Consolidated State Plans were analyzed, but states varied in how recently their plans had been updated. Additionally, only these state plans were analyzed for information on consequences for failing to meet the 95% participation requirement. States may include this information in other documents that were not analyzed for this study, so the findings may not be inclusive of all state policies related to the 95% participation requirement.
When searching for opt-out policies, only results that were publicly available on state-level websites were included in the study, but there may be additional documents addressing assessment opt-out that were located elsewhere. Other documents may be available on secure portals that require a user login, or they could be included in materials sent directly to districts and schools. As such, the findings may not be inclusive of all state policies related to assessment opt-out.
ESEA places a 1% participation cap on participation in states’ AA-AAAS. Many states are above the cap and are striving to reduce participation in the AA-AAAS. States have reduced their participation rates in the AA-AAAS by revising their assessment participation guidelines, providing resources and professional development to educators and other IEP team members, monitoring participation decisions, and conducting other activities (Hinkle et al., 2022; Quanbeck et al., 2023), but some states are still above the cap. Some of these states are unable to get waivers from the 1% requirements because they do not have 95% participation of all students or of students with disabilities.
This analysis found that there was wide variation across states in how they addressed the 95% assessment participation requirement in their state plans. Some states required LEAs below 95% participation to develop an improvement plan, and a subset of these states had penalties. For example, some states lower how a LEA is rated if it has a participation rate lower than 95% (e.g., dropping a grade in the accountability system, counting non-participants as not proficient). Additionally, some states had escalating consequences if the LEA was below the 95% participation requirement for multiple years. States that do not currently have consequences in their ESEA Consolidated State Plan for LEAs being below the 95% participation rate may want to consider adding them. Consequences may encourage LEAs to address assessment participation opt-out issues.
There is wide variation across states in how they address parent opt-out of their child participating in statewide assessments. In some states, opt-out is very difficult, while other states make it extremely easy for parents to opt their child out of state assessments. States that make it easy for parents to opt out their child may want to consider tightening their policies, as the consequences of not meeting the 95% participation requirement can impact both accountability systems and states’ ability to apply for and receive a waiver to the 1% cap on participation in the alternate assessment. Additionally, states should ensure that they are communicating to both parents and students the importance of participating in statewide assessments.
Hinkle, A. R., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Strunk, K. (2022). State approaches to monitoring AA-AAAS participation decisions (NCEO Report 432). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport432.pdf
Katanyoutanant, T., Kwon, S., McNeilly, M., Hemberg, B., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Hinkle, A. R., & Liu, K. K. (2021). The 95 percent state assessment participation requirement: Current landscape, state challenges, and recommended strategies (NCEO Report 429). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport429.pdf
Quanbeck, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2023). 2021-22 participation guidelines and definitions for alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (NCEO Report 440). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport440.pdf
Rooney, P., & Williams, V. (2023). Requirements to request a waiver/waiver extension for the 2023-24 school year from the 1.0 percent cap on the percentage of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who may be assessed with an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). U.S. Department of Education. https://oese.ed.gov/files/2023/09/OnePercentWaiverRequirements20232492023.pdf
Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged—Academic Assessments, 34 C.F.R. § 200 (2016). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-08/pdf/2016-29128.pdf
https://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf
(ii) not less than 95 percent of each group of students described in subparagraph (C)(v) who are enrolled in the school are required to take the assessments, consistent with paragraph (3)(C)(xi) and with accommodations, guidelines, and alternative assessments provided in the same manner as those provided under section 612(a)(16)(A) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and paragraph (3), on which adequate yearly progress is based (except that the 95 percent requirement described in this clause shall not apply in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student)
(E) ANNUAL MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT.—(i) Annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools on the assessments described under subsection (b)(2)(v)(I).
(ii) For the purpose of measuring, calculating, and reporting on the indicator described in subparagraph (B)(i), include in the denominator the greater of—
(I) 95 percent of all such students, or 95 percent of all such students in the subgroup, as the case may be; or
(II) the number of students participating in the assessments.
(iii) Provide a clear and understandable explanation of how the State will factor the requirement of clause (i) of this subparagraph into the statewide accountability system.
(D) ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS FOR STUDENTS WITH THE MOST SIGNIFICANT COGNITIVE DISABILITIES.— (i) ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS ALIGNED WITH ALTERNATE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS.—A State may provide for alternate assessments aligned with the challenging State academic standards and alternate academic achievement standards described in paragraph (1) (E) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, if the State—
(I) consistent with clause (ii), ensures that, for each subject, the total number of students assessed in such subject using the alternate assessments does not exceed 1 percent of the total number of all students in the State who are assessed in such subject;
Section 1111(b)(2)(K)
(K) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON PARENT RIGHTS.— Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments under this paragraph.
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statuteregulations/
(a) Students with disabilities in general.
(1) A State must include students with disabilities in all assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act, with appropriate accommodations consistent with paragraphs (b), (f)(1), and (h)(4) of this section. For purposes of this section, students with disabilities, collectively, are—
(i) All children with disabilities as defined under section 602(3) of the IDEA;
(ii) Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are identified from among the students in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section; and
(iii) Students with disabilities covered under other acts, including—
(A) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; and
(B) Title II of the ADA, as amended.
(2)
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, a student with a disability under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be assessed with an assessment aligned with the challenging State academic standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled.
(ii) A student with the most significant cognitive disabilities under paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section may be assessed with—
(A) The general assessment under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section; or
(B) If a State has adopted alternate academic achievement standards permitted under section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the Act for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, an alternate assessment under paragraph (c) of this section aligned with the challenging State academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled and the State’s alternate academic achievement standards.
(b) Appropriate accommodations for students with disabilities.
(1) A State’s academic assessment system must provide, for each student with a disability under paragraph (a) of this section, the appropriate accommodations, such as interoperability with, and ability to use, assistive technology devices consistent with nationally recognized accessibility standards, that are necessary to measure the academic achievement of the student consistent with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, as determined by—
(i) For each student under paragraph (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, the student’s IEP team;
(ii) For each student under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) of this section, the student’s placement team; or
(iii) For each student under paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, the individual or team designated by the LEA to make these decisions.
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2023/09/OnePercentWaiverRequirements20232492023.pdf
Requirements to Request a Waiver/Waiver Extension for the 2023-24 School Year from the 1.0 Percent Cap on the Percentage of Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities Who May Be Assessed with an Alternate Assessment Aligned with Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AAAAAS)
States Applying for a New Waiver in SY 2023-24
For a State to be eligible to receive a 1.0 percent cap waiver for a subject area, it must have assessed at least 95 percent of all students enrolled and 95 percent of children with disabilities in the previous year in the grades assessed in that subject area.10 As part of its waiver request, a State must submit SY 2022-23 assessment participation rates overall and for students with disabilities for each subject for which it is requesting a waiver. If a State did not meet the 95 percent assessment participation requirement in SY 2022-23, it is not eligible to receive a waiver from the 1.0 percent cap in AA-AAAS participation for SY 2023-24.
States Applying to Extend a Waiver Granted or Extended in SY 2022-23
A State that wishes to request an extension of the 1.0 percent cap waiver it received in SY 202223 must: 1. Have assessed at least 95 percent of all students enrolled and 95 percent of children with disabilities in the previous year in the grades assessed in that subject area.
States Denied a Waiver in SY 2022-23
A State that was denied a 1.0 percent cap waiver in SY 2022-23 must follow the instructions for applying for a new waiver for SY 2023-24.
States Seeking a Combination New Waiver in SY 2023-24 and an Extension of a Waiver Granted in SY 2022-23
Some States were denied or did not apply for a 1.0 percent cap waiver in a particular subject area (typically due to assessment participation rates below 95 percent) in SY 2022-23 but were granted a waiver in other subject areas. As in previous years, a request for a 1.0 percent cap waiver in a subject area for which the State did not receive or request a waiver in SY 2022-23, that has been coupled with a request for an extension of a waiver granted in SY 2022-23, will be treated as a combination new/extension waiver request and all applicable requirements apply to each subject area included in the State’s request.
Table B-1. Details and Specifications: How State Plans Address the 95% Participation Rate Requirement
Note: Bolding added. Text in bold indicates the consequences/required actions for states that do not meet the 95% participation rate.
| State | Details |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Participation is based on the total number of students enrolled during the state testing window, not just full academic year students. Students in Grades 3-8 and high school will take the state assessments. The EL state assessment is calculated for participation in reading/language arts for those students who are in their first year of enrollment in a U.S. school and who will not participate in the regular state assessment. Participation rates are calculated for all subgroups. In calculating the Academic Achievement Indicator, the ALSDE will use, as the denominator of the calculation, the greater of 95 percent of all students (or all students in a subgroup), or the number of students participating in the assessment. If a school’s (or student subgroup’s) participation rate is 95 percent or greater, the denominator for purposes of calculating the Academic Achievement indicator is the number of students who were enrolled in the school at the time of testing. If, on the other hand, a school’s (or student subgroup’s) participation rate is less than 95 percent, ALSDE will adjust the denominator of the Academic Achievement indicator such that the denominator is equal to 95 percent of all students enrolled. Schools and districts not meeting the required 95% participation rate for statewide mathematics and ELA assessments will be required to complete a plan after one year of failing to meet the requirements. Support and resources will be supplied to the districts and schools to assist personnel with meeting this requirement. Schools not meeting this requirement for two consecutive years will have their summative score reduced by 2 percent. (pp. 34-35) |
| Alaska | Alaska recognizes the importance of statewide assessments to inform the public about the performance of schools, to provide information so that schools can improve, and to ensure that all students are receiving an excellent education. Alaska law respects that parents have the right to exclude their students from participation in specific instructional activities and statewide assessments. Schools may not coerce parents or their students into participating in the assessments. Alaska expects districts and schools to communicate with teachers and parents about the importance of the assessments and to provide every encouragement to students to participate and do their best on the assessments. Alaska will continue to calculate the participation rate based on the percentage of students enrolled in grades 3-9 on the first day of testing who receive a valid score. If a school does not meet the participation rate requirement, the denominator of the Academic Achievement indicator will be 95 percent of all FAY students in grades 3-9. ESSA does not provide flexibility for a participation n-size when calculating the Academic Achievement indicator. Schools that miss the 95 percent participation rate target for the all students group or any subgroup for two consecutive years must create and submit an improvement plan to the district. The district must review and approve the plans for each school. The plan must be created with stakeholders and must include documentation of the communication and other efforts the school made to inform parents of the importance of participating in the statewide assessments, while recognizing parents’ rights under State law regarding their child’s participation in those assessments. The plan must also document training that teachers have received in the importance of the assessments and how to communicate with parents and students regarding the assessments. The plan must document efforts made to encourage participation by all students in all subgroups, and that no students have been systematically excluded from testing. The plan must include steps the school will take to increase the participation rate in future years. The plan must include the strategies and samples of the materials that will be used by the school and district to educate parents about the importance of assessments and their role in student learning. DEED will work with districts with a significant number of schools missing the 95 percent participation rate target, or those in which one or more schools miss the 95 percent target over a number of years, to determine a process for improvement. (pp. 41-42) |
| Arizona | A participation rate of less than 95 percent on statewide mathematics and reading/language arts assessments will be a factor in school improvement decisions. Also, schools will be monitored annually with interventions required if student participation stays under 95 percent for multiple years. A participation rate of less than 95 percent on statewide mathematics and reading/language arts assessments is factored into the calculation of the proficiency indicator. If a school tested under 95% of their eligible students, then a penalty term is added to the denominator. The penalty term is equal to the number tests the school should have administered to have 95% tested. Simplified example: School A had 100 students eligible to assess in mathematics. They tested 93 with 49 earning a passing score. Percent proficient is the ratio is 49/93. Since they needed two more students to reach 95%, their ratio is changed to 49/(93+2) or 49/95. This will help ensure that the requirement of 95% student participation is met. (p. 29) |
| Arkansas | In the Arkansas Educational Support and Accountability System, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for all students, 95 percent will be used for the denominator for purposes of measuring, calculating, and reporting. Additionally, in the support accountability system, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for any subgroup of students, 95 percent will be used as the denominator for each subgroup for the purposes of measuring, calculating and reporting. All calculations will be conducted both for the all students group and for each student group meeting minimum group size requirements (N=15). For schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for two consecutive years, the ADE will require each school to submit a plan that includes strategies for meeting participation requirements. For schools that do not meet the participation requirement for multiple years or that do not show sustained improvement in meeting the 95 percent participation rate, the ADE will implement additional actions and interventions as appropriate. (pp. 66-67) |
| California | Schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation rate will have their distance from level 3 score adjusted downward. The Lowest Obtainable Scale Score (LOSS) will be assigned for each student needed to bring school, district, and student group to a 95 percent participation rate. The LOSS score will be compared to the lowest possible scale score for Level 3 (Standard Met) to determine Distance from Standard (DFS). These scores will be included in the calculation of the school’s and student group’s DFS. (p. 76) |
| Colorado | Colorado law prohibits LEAs from coercing parents and students into having their students participate in state standardized assessments. Compliance with this provision of state law makes it impossible for the State Board of Education to ensure compliance with the 95 percent requirement. However, as requested by the USDE, participation calculations for federal accountability will differ from the state calculations. In October 2017, the state board of education (SBE) approved re-submitting the state’s ESSA plan to adjust the calculations used for identifying schools for support and improvement under ESSA. Moving forward, Colorado will count non-participants in excess of 5% as non-proficient records (assigned a 650 scale score) for identification of schools for support and improvement, per ESSA. To help ensure that all students participate in state-administered assessments, CDE will: 1) Calculate state assessment participation rates for all schools and districts and disaggregated groups; 2) Report state-administered assessment participation rates and assessment results for all schools and districts and disaggregated groups; 3) Require schools and districts that fall below 95 percent accountability participation rate* in one or more of the state administered English Language Arts or mathematics assessments to address their low accountability participation rates as part of an improvement plan, including actions that schools and districts will take in response to their low accountability participation rates; 4) Include low accountability participation rates* as an indicator in ESSA Program Reviews conducted with districts and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) that have schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support and improvement or schools with accountability participation rates below 95 percent; and 5) Provide schools and districts with low assessment participation rates information to share with their communities regarding the state assessments, including reasons for administering the assessments and how the results are used. *The accountability participation rate for a school/district/disaggregated group removes parent excusals from the denominator. Per Colorado state law, districts must have a policy in place to allow parents to excuse their students from the state assessments. Additionally, schools and districts “shall not impose negative consequences, including prohibiting school attendance, imposing an unexcused absence, or prohibiting participation in extracurricular activities, on the student or on the parent.” The State Board of Education passed a motion in February 2015 stating that CDE shall not hold schools and districts liable for the choices that parents make to excuse their students from the state assessments. As a result, in Colorado, any accountability implications are focused on accountability participation rates, which do not hold schools or districts liable for parent decisions with regard to student participation in the state assessment. (p. 84) |
| Connecticut | Five Categories: Five Categories: All schools are placed into one of five categories. Elementary and middle schools (where the highest grade is less than or equal to 8) and high schools will be classified separately. Categories 4 and 5 represent those identified for comprehensive or targeted support. The remaining schools are categorized into either 1, 2, or 3. In 2015-16, Category 1 schools were those in the top quartile, Category 2 schools were those in the two middle quartiles and Category 3 schools were in the bottom quartile. The cut values from 2015-16 and 2016-17 will inform the establishment of criterion-referenced cut points to be used in future years. Participation Rate: Schools that would otherwise be categorized as l or 2 will be lowered a category if the participation rate in the state summative assessment in any subject for either the all students group or the high needs group is less than 95 percent. (p. 47) |
| Delaware | As required by federal law, the DDOE is committed to all schools meeting the 95% student participation for all students and for all subgroups. DDOE will report the participation rates for schools. For schools that do not meet the 95% participation rate, DDOE will require each school to submit a plan that includes strategies for meeting participation requirements. For schools that do not meet the participation rate for multiple years or that do not show sustained improvement in meeting the 95% participation rate, DDOE will implement additional actions and interventions as appropriate. (p. 52) |
| District of Columbia |
OSSE is committed to the importance of all schools meeting the 95 percent participation threshold. It aligns with our core accountability principle to ensure that the accountability system focuses on the outcomes of all students. For schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation rate, OSSE will implement a system of supports, technical assistance and monitoring for LEAs to support them in demonstrating improvement. Schools will not automatically be identified for missing the 95 percent participation rate, however, for schools that do not meet the participation rate for multiple years or who do not show sustained improvement in meeting the 95 percent participation rate, OSSE will implement additional actions and interventions as appropriate. (p. 34) |
| Florida | Schools with a participation rate of less than 95% on statewide ELA and Mathematics assessments including EOCs, must review their testing practices and submit a plan for change to achieve 95% tested in the future. If the percent tested does not improve above 95% in the subsequent year, FDOE will implement additional actions and interventions to ensure that the 95% testing threshold is met. Florida will report on the 95% tested requirement at the subgroup level in the school and district report card (see Appendix C). If a school tests less than 95% of students in any one subgroup, the school must also review their testing practices and submit a plan for change to achieve 95% tested in the future, targeted toward that specific subgroup(s). If the percent tested does not improve above 95% in the subsequent year, FDOE will implement additional actions and interventions to ensure that the 95% testing threshold is met. (p. 25) |
| Georgia | If the participation rate for all students or a subgroup of students falls below 95%, the achievement score for that group of students will be multiplied by the actual participation rate divided by 95%. This ensures the adjustment is proportional to the extent to which the 95% participation rate was not attained. The adjusted achievement score will be utilized in College and Career Ready Performance Index calculations, including Content Mastery, Closing Gaps, and progress toward long-term goals. In the example above, School A has a participation rate of 98% and therefore will not receive an achievement score adjustment. Their achievement score of 76.5% will be utilized in accountability calculations. School B, however, has a participation rate of 80%. Therefore, School B’s achievement score of 93.8% will be multiplied by the participation rate divided by 95% (80%/95%) to yield an adjustment achievement score of 78.9%. The adjusted achievement score of 78.9% will be utilized in accountability calculations. It is important to note that this method of applying the participation rate complies with the ESSA requirement to utilize the greater of the denominator of tested students or 95% of students as it yields the same results. For example, in the case of School B, if the achievement numerator of 75 was divided by 95% of enrolled students (95% of 100 students is 95 students) instead of the number of tested students (80), the achievement rate would be 75/95 or 78.9%. Utilizing the method described provides for the same adjustment required in ESSA while presenting it in a straightforward, transparent manner that can be understood and replicated by the public on the reporting system. Georgia’s proposal to adjust the 95 percent participation requirement is consistent with other state plans that have been approved. In particular, Vermont and Michigan’s approved plans include very similar proposals to that of Georgia. Vermont will multiply the summative score for each school and student group by the percent of test takers if participation falls below 95%. Michigan will multiply the proficiency rate by the participation rate when the participation rate is below 95%. (p. 47) |
| Hawaii | Hawaii continues to require schools to have a minimum participation rate of 95 percent for the annual statewide assessments. Hawaii proposes to apply a non-proficient outcome to any non-participant in each student group – all students and each subgroup – not meeting the 95 percent participation requirement up to 95 percent of such group. For example, if 170 of 200 students participated in the assessments, that would equate to a participation rate of 85 percent. In order for the school to have met the 95 percent participation rate, an additional 20 students should have been tested (170+20)/200 = 95 percent. Because the school was 20 students short of the 95 percent participation rate, an additional 20 nonproficient students will be added to the school’s proficiency rate. If 85 of the 170 students tested were proficient, the school would have had a proficiency rate of 50.0 percent; however, the 20 students added to the denominator effectively increases the number of non-proficient students by 20. This lowers the proficiency rate to 85/(170+20) = 44.7 percent. The addition of the 20 students to the denominator lowers the academic achievement rate. HIDOE will require schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation requirement to create a plan for corrective action to increase student participation in statewide academic assessments. (p. 57) |
| Idaho | Idaho understands that in order to provide a fair and accurate picture of school success, and to help parents, teachers, school leaders, and state officials understand where students are struggling and how to support them, the state must ensure high participation in statewide assessments. According to current Idaho Administrative Code (IDAPA 08.02.03.112(e), “failure to include ninety-five percent (95%) of all students and ninety-five percent (95%) of students in designated subgroups automatically identifies the school as not having achieved measurable progress in ISAT proficiency.” For the purposes of this plan, “measurable progress on ISAT proficiency” is defined as not having met the school’s interim progress measure toward its long-term goals in any group where 95% participation is not attained. Additionally, “If a school district does not meet the ninety-five percent (95%) participation target for the current year, the participation rate can be calculated by the most current three (3) year average of participation.” Should a school or LEA not meet the 95% participation minimum standard, the local school board will be notified by the State Board of Education that the school or district has failed to meet the minimum standard of reporting and that this will be reflected on the state report card. The ISDE will support the school or LEA to write a parent outreach plan that addresses how it will engage parents and community members in order to meet the 95% participation minimum standard. In addition, ISDE will develop policies requiring the LEA to use a portion of its funds pursuant to 33-320, Idaho Code (Continuous Improvement Plans) for local school board and superintendent training on data-driven decision-making and assessment literacy. If a school has at least 95% participation in any year, the school is not required to submit a parent outreach plan for the following year. (pp. 35-36) |
| Illinois | A school’s ELA, math and science proficiency rates are calculated out of either the number of students who tested, or 95 percent of those who should have. A determination will be made by assigning a preliminary summative rating for each metric in the accountability system, for both the all student group and for all identified demographic subgroups. Once ratings on the individual indicators have been calculated, and a preliminary summative rating determined, the school or district’s participation rate will be considered. If a school does not have 95 percent participation rate, in total and for each student demographic group, it cannot receive the highest summative rating. For example, a school cannot be rated at Exemplary if they do not have a 95 percent participation rate in all student subgroups. (p. 80) |
| Indiana | The Academic Achievement Indicator is based on the same measure as the statewide long-term goal for improving academic achievement, and is aligned to the long-term goal of increasing statewide proficiency levels for all students and for each student group. The Academic Achievement Indicator measures the performance of all students on the statewide annual assessment and its alternate, or ILEARN, and its alternate assessment I AM, in the subject areas of English/language arts and mathematics. Performance results of individual student groups on the Academic Achievement Indicator will be calculated in the same manner for all students and each student group, and reported out annually. Elementary and middle schools, or schools with any of grades 3 through 8, and high schools, or schools with grade 10, receive a score and status for English/language arts and mathematics based on a the product of the proficiency rate and a the participation rate on ILEARN (for grades 3 through 8) or ISTEP+ (grade 10) the statewide annual assessment. The proficiency rate is calculated based on those students enrolled at the school for at least 162 days, or 90 percent of the school year, with valid test results. The participation rate considers how many students participated in the statewide annual assessment in the subject areas of English/language arts and mathematics, respectively. The participation rate is calculated based on those students enrolled at the school for at least 162 days, or 90 percent of the school year. Students receiving either an undetermined result or no result on the statewide annual assessment are considered as “non-participants” when calculating the participation rate. If a school satisfies the requirement to assess at least 95 percent of students enrolled for 90 percent of the school year then the participation rate defaults to 100 percent (multiplier of one). If a school fails to satisfy the 95 percent participation requirement, then the proficiency rate for the respective subject area is multiplied by the actual participation rate in decimal form. If a school satisfies the requirement to assess at least 95 percent of the students enrolled at the school during the test window, then the participation multiplier defaults to one. If a school fails to satisfy the 95 percent participation rate requirement, then the proficiency rate for the respective subject area is multiplied by the actual participation rate. The proficiency rate and participation rate for each subject area are multiplied together to yield a base subject area score. For example, a school with a math proficiency rate of 80% and a math participation rate of 98% receives a base subject area score of 80.0 points (80 x 1.0), whereas a school with a math proficiency rate of 80% and a math participation rate of 90% receives a base subject area score of 72.0 points (80 x .90). The school’s base subject area scores are then considered against the statewide long-term goals for academic achievement in order to measure the percent of the long-term goal achieved by the school. The measure of the school’s achievement in relation to the long-term goal to determine a final subject area score. The long-term goal set for the “all students” group for the subject areas of English/language arts and mathematics are each translated into a goal factor by dividing 100 by the long-term academic achievement goal. This goal factor is how the indicator measures the school’s achievement on the indicator in relation to the long term goal. The timeline to meet the long-term goal is four (4) years, or achievement by the end of the 2022-2023 school year. At that time, the Department will reassess the long-term goal and may reset the goals factors for the academic achievement indicator to align with any changes to the long-term goal. (pp. 36-37) The participation rate is incorporated into the statewide accountability system under the Academic Achievement Indicator. The participation rate serves as a multiplier under the Academic Achievement Indicator. If a school satisfies the requirement to assess at least 95 percent of the students enrolled at the school for at least 162 days, or 90% of the school year, then the multiplier defaults to one. If a school fails to satisfy the 95 percent participation requirement, then the proficiency rate for the respective subject area is multiplied by the actual participation rate. This practice lowers the overall Academic Achievement Indicator score within the accountability system for any school that does not assess at least 95 percent of its students. (p. 62) |
| Iowa | Participation rate is calculated at the school level. The percent of students enrolled who complete either the state-required accountability assessment (The Iowa Tests currently) or the state-required alternate assessment (the Dynamic Learning Maps currently) is calculated for all students, and students within each subgroup, for each school. The numerator for participation is the number of students who scored proficient on the state assessment. The denominator of the Academic Achievement indicator will be calculated in order to ensure maximum participation in the assessment. Therefore, if participation is at or above 95 percent, the denominator will be the number of students tested. If participation is less than 95 percent, the denominator will be 95 percent of the students enrolled. If a school falls below 95 percent participation rate, zero points will be assigned for that indicator. (p. 56) Participation Rate is included at a weight of 10% for Elementary/Middle Schools and High Schools. Iowa’s participation rate across schools for all students and across subgroups has consistently been at or above 95% for the past 10 years. Therefore this indicator is either met 95% participation in assessments, or not met 95% participation. (p. 66) |
| Kansas | The expectation in Kansas is that ALL students enrolled on the day the testing window opens in the grades with state assessments will participate in those assessments. If a district, school, or subgroup misses the 95 percent participation rate target, the Kansas Integrated Accountability System (KIAS) will flag the district, which is the statewide accountability system for state and federal programs. The KIAS looks at many qualitative and quantitative risk factors around compliance and performance. The KIAS process holds buildings and districts accountable for each of these risk factors. Each risk factor is assigned a weight. The number of findings and the weight of such findings informs the corrective action process. Missing the 95% participation rate would trigger the implementation of a corrective action plan supported by the KSDE, the Technical Assistance Support Network, Kansas Education Service Centers, and other technical assistant partners. The KSDE will provide ongoing technical assistance to the district and the building in support of reaching the 95 percent participation rate. (pp. 43-44) |
| Kentucky | Historically, Kentucky’s test participation rate has been very high. Opting-out of statewide testing is not an option. Although parents have the right to opt their children out of public education by choosing home school or private school, parents cannot choose the provisions of public education with which they will comply. In “Triplett vs. Livingston County Board of Education, 967 S.W.2d (Ky. App. 1997)”, the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the mandate of the Kentucky Board of Education that all students of public schools in the state participate in standardized assessments. Students may only be excused from the statewide assessment upon completion and approval of the Medical Nonparticipation request. Administrative regulation 703 KAR 5:240 establishes administrative procedures and guidelines for Kentucky’s assessment and accountability program. Sections 8 and 9 specifically address student participation and are provided below. To summarize, if a student does not participate (via repeated absences or refusal to enter test answers) and does not have an approved exemption, the lowest reportable score on the appropriate test shall be assigned for accountability calculations for the school and district. This means, every student enrolled in the school and district is included in the calculation. The total number of students in the school is included in the denominator. If the student does not test, a novice (or zero points) is included in the numerator. “Section 8. Student Participation in State Assessments. (1)(a) All students enrolled shall participate at the appropriate grade level for the state-required assessments in grades 3- 12. (b) For assessment and accountability purposes, the state shall not use the primary level designator and all students in grades 3-12 shall be assigned a single grade level. The assigned grade level shall determine the state tests to administer. Kentucky Exceptions for testing shall be made for medical-exempted students. Based on ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(F), Kentucky Department of Education policy will monitor enrollment and testing of foreign exchange students. Students will participate in state-required testing and will be included in accountability calculations if the student meets Kentucky’s full academic year requirement. (d) Students categorized as English learners (EL) shall follow testing guidelines set forth by the federal Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, 20 U.S.C. Secs. 6301 et seq. (2) For the state assessments in grades 3-12, , a school shall test all students during the test window that are enrolled in each accountability grade on the first day of the school’s testing window and shall complete a roster in the electronic application provided by the Department of Education. (3) A student retained in a grade in which state-required assessments are administered shall participate in the assessments for that grade again and shall continue to be included in all accountability calculations. (4 A student who is suspended or expelled but continues to receive instructional services required under KRS 158.150 shall participate in the state-required assessments.” “Section 9. Students Not Participating in State-Required Assessments. (1) If a student does not participate in state-required assessments, the school at which the student was enrolled on the first day of the testing window shall include the student in the roster in the electronic application provided by the Department of Education. (2) A student who does not take the state assessments and does not qualify for approved exempted status shall be assigned the lowest reportable score on the appropriate test for accountability calculations. (3)A student reaching the age of twenty-one (21) years of age who no longer generates state funding under Support Education Excellence in Kentucky shall not be required to participate in state- required assessments. (4) A student who is expelled and legally not provided instructional services under the standards established in KRS 158.150 shall not be considered to be enrolled for a full academic year, and shall not be included in accountability calculations. (5) If a student has been expelled or suspended at some point during a year and is enrolled but does not complete the state-required assessment, the student shall be included in the accountability calculation. (6)(a) If participation in the state-required assessment would jeopardize a student’s physical, mental or emotional well-being, a school or district shall submit a request for medical exemption, which shall be subject to the approval of the Department of Education and which describes the medical condition that warrants exempting a student from the assessments. (b) An identified disability or handicapping condition alone shall not be considered sufficient reason for granting a medical exemption to state-required assessment and accountability requirements. (c) A student with an approved medical exemption shall be excluded from state-required assessments and state and federal accountability calculations. (7) If the student moves out of state or to a private school before state-required assessments can be completed in the school or district’s announced testing window, the student shall be excluded from accountability calculations.” (pp. 76-77) |
| Louisiana | The state maintains student enrollment in a statewide student information system. In accordance with ESSA and in order to maintain a valid system of school accountability, all students who are enrolled in grades three through eight by the first week of testing are required to participate in testing. For high school, all students who complete a class for which there is an end-of-course (EOC) test must take the corresponding EOC test. All high school students must take the English II and Algebra I tests by the third year of high school enrollment. (NOTE: This will shift to the English I test for students entering high school in 2017-2018 and beyond). For the calculation of the school and district performance scores, when students who are required to participate in state testing fail to do so, the school receives scores of zero on all relevant indices (status and growth). The zero is factored into the calculation of the school performance score. (p. 64) |
| Maine | Maine has experienced recent success regarding the 95% participation rate by taking a proactive approach and will continue to build on the foundation currently in place. SAUs will continue as part of their Annual ESEA Consolidated Application to provide assurances regarding the implementation of Title I federal programs of which 95% participation in the state assessment is included. Should a school have a participation rate of between 76% and 94% participation, the school will be required to submit to the Maine DOE an action plan outlining the necessary steps the school and/or district will take in order to increase participation levels. Should a school have a participation rate of less than 75%, the school and district will be required to submit evidence of necessary steps the school or district has taken or will take to increase participation levels moving forward. Non-Title I schools, as part of their assurances in receiving supports and interventions from the SEA, will provide the same documentation as outlined above. This information will be contained within the Comprehensive Education Plan. The 95% participation rate will not factor into the accountability system as part of a summative rating as Maine shifts from a summative rating approach. Maine will factor in the 95% participation requirement in the computation of the academic achievement indicator for all assessments (eMPower, SAT, and MSSA) and for all students and student groups in each content area (math and ELA). In computing a school’s academic achievement indicator for an assessment in a content area (math or ELA), the denominator will be the greater of: 95% of all students in the grades assessed who are enrolled in the school; or, the number of all such students who participated in the content area assessment. This information will be included in the school review dashboard in order to provide a holistic review of the school. Appendix A contains definitions for Maine’s indicators of school success. (p. 49) |
| Maryland | Schools will be measured annually on the percentage of students in the school that participate in the required assessments for all students and for all student groups required and the information will be reported on the state report card. States are required to include either a denominator equal to 95 percent of all students and of each student group or the number of students participating in the assessments. (See Section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii) of ESSA). For schools that fail to achieve 95 percent participation, any student below the 95 percent threshold will be counted as “not proficient” in the calculation of proficiency rates even though they did not take the exam. Maryland is proposing to factor the participation rate into its school accountability system by applying the minimum requirements of Section 1111(c)(4)(E) of ESSA. To ensure schools and school communities have as much actionable information as possible and upon the recommendation from stakeholders, proficiency results will be publicly available in two ways: 1) with participation rate factored in, or based on at least 95% of students in tested grades and 2) without participation rate, or based on the actual number of tested students. (p. 44) |
| Massachusetts | A school’s summative performance level will be lowered if that school assesses less than 95% of students in the aggregate or for any subgroup that meets a minimum N size of 20. (p. 59) |
| Michigan | In addition to ESSA requirements, the inclusion of assessment participation aligns with Michigan’s Top 10 in 10 strategies. The inclusion of a high participation rate requirement will help Michigan reduce the impact of high risk factors, including poverty, and provide equitable resources to meet the needs of all students to ensure that they have access to quality educational opportunities. There are two standalone participation components within the proposed accountability system. Both components function in the same manner, however they cover different assessments. One covers the assessments used to determine results within the achievement and growth components; the other covers the assessment used to determine results within the English Learner Progress component. The calculation to determine the percentage of the participation goal met is: ((Sum of students with valid assessment scores/Sum of students within assessed grades during an assessment window)/Component goal). In order to satisfy the ESSA requirement that at least 95% of students are included in the proficiency calculations, participation rates are included in determining the percentage of the proficiency target met. Only students with full academic year (FAY) status are included in proficiency calculations. The proficiency calculation used to populate a subgroup’s performance in a specific content area includes the participation rate (due to requirements that at least 95% of students are included in the calculation). The calculation is: (Participation rate of full academic year students) x (proficiency rate of full academic year students), or to break it out further: (FAY tested/FAY enrolled) x (FAY proficient/FAY tested). Schools that continually have challenges meeting the 95% participation requirement will be eligible for additional supports through our Partnership District work. (pp. 44-45) |
| Minnesota | As described in 4.iv.a, “Academic Achievement Indicator,” Minnesota will base its calculation of academic achievement on the number of students enrolled for at least half an academic year in tested grades. Students expected to test but who do not receive a valid score will be included in the denominator for calculations of academic achievement unless they have a documented medical excuse. Students who score at the “does not meet standards” or “partially meets standards” achievement levels and students who do not participate in testing will be included in the denominator of the rate calculation but will not be awarded any points in the calculation. Students who do not participate in the test will be identified in state records and in communications with families as not participating; they will not be described as failing to meet standards. (p. 36). |
| Mississippi | If a school/district does not meet the 95% minimum participation rate, the school/district will automatically be dropped a letter grade on the accountability system. Although subgroup participation rates will be reported in addition to all students participation on State and LEA report cards, this penalty in school/district grades will apply to the overall, all students participation rate only. (A 94.5% participation rate will not be rounded to 95%.) (p. 39) |
| Missouri | Participation on state assessments will remain a primary component of MO-DESE’s accountability system. All LEAs, schools and subgroups will be required to assess at least 95 percent of their students on assessments required by the MAP. Any school with less than a 95 percent participation rate in ELA or mathematics will automatically fail to earn points for academic achievement in the state’s system for meaningfully differentiating schools. MO-DESE will utilize the same criteria for any subgroup(s), including students with disabilities and ELs, for which the rate falls below 95 percent. (p. 31) |
| Montana | For any schools that do not meet the 95 percent student participation rate (i.e., the number of students with valid assessment scores divided by the number of students enrolled at the school during the testing window snapshot) in statewide mathematics and reading/language arts assessments, either overall for all students or for any student subgroup consisting of 10 or more students, schools will be assigned the lowest average score (i.e., novice) on each measure for the missing student values. (p. 29) |
| Nebraska | For each school/district an adjustment or limitation to the overall classification rating will be made, based on participation rate. Schools that fail to reach 95% participation rate, can lower the raw classification by one, two, or three points based on cut rates as follows- minus 1 if lower than 95% but greater than 90%, minus 2 if less than 90% but greater than 85%. Participation rates less than 85% cannot earn more than a 1 (Needs Improvement) on the overall classification. 1 rating adjustment: Participation rate < 95% 2 rating adjustment: Participation rate <90% Limit rating to 1 if Participation rate is <85 (p. 122) |
| Nevada | The SEA is required to “annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students who are enrolled in public school…” (ESSA 1177- 35(E)). Specifically, the ESSA requires 95 percent participation on the state mathematics and English language arts assessments. Participation in the Science assessment is not included in this rate. Given the requirement to measure participation for all students and each of the ten subgroups over two content areas, there will be 22 distinct participation measures determined for each school. Participation on the State assessments is important because it helps ensure equal access to educational opportunity as well as enables meaningful measurement of academic performance. To ensure that this high standard continues, Nevada has established three levels of participation rate penalties for schools that test fewer than 95% of its eligible student population: Participation Warning, Participation Penalty, and Continuing Participation Penalty. Additionally, the participation rates for each of the ten subgroups for mathematics and English language proficiency will be publicly reported on the school rating report. Schools failing to meet the subgroup participation rate of 95 percent and failing to meet the weighted average calculated participation rate of 95 percent over the most recent two or three years for the first year will be publicly identified as failing this important metric. The NSPF school report will prominently display the “Participation Warning” with the school index score and Star Rating. No points are deducted for a Participation Warning. If a school fails to meet the ESEA subgroup participation rate of 95 percent and fails to meet the weighted average calculated participation rate of 95 percent over the most recent two or three years for a second consecutive year, the Academic Achievement Indicator points will be deducted from this indicator and the NSPF school report will prominently display the “Participation Penalty” designation with the school index score and Star Rating. If a school fails to meet the subgroup participation rate of 95 percent and fails to meet the weighted average calculated participation rate of 95 percent over the most recent two or three years for a third consecutive year, the school will be identified as and subjected to a “Continuing Participation Penalty.” Schools designated as such will earn zero points for the Academic Achievement indicator. For a school to receive a Participation Penalty there does not need to be consistency with the same subgroup missing the same content area. For example, in year one, a school may have the English Learner subgroup miss their Math participation rate, and thus will receive a Participation Warning. In year two, this same school may have a different subgroup miss the 95% participation rate for Math, but the English Learner subgroup met the 95% participation rate. This school would still receive a Participation Penalty for missing any of the participation rates for a second consecutive year. Additionally, once a school remediates participation problems, and is not re-identified for a second year, the school is then cleared of all penalties. If identified again in a subsequent year, the school will first receive a Participation Warning, followed by a Participation Penalty, and then a Continuing Participation Penalty. Furthermore, schools failing to meet the 95% participation rate will be required to review, approve, and monitor an improvement plan developed in partnership with stakeholders. For LEAs with a significant number of schools missing the 95% goal, NDE will work with those organizations to determine the process for improvement. (p. 63) |
| New Hampshire | The State school report card will report student participation on the State assessments or on local and common PACE assessments, and will identify LEA’s where participation falls below 95 percent. In accordance with ESSA, “(E) Annual Measurement of Achievement,” the denominator in calculating the achievement index (Section 4.iv.a.) will be the number of students participating in the State or PACE assessments, or 95 percent of the full academic year enrollment, whichever is greater. (pp. 54-55) |
| New Jersey | Pursuant to Section 11 1 l(c)(4)(E) of ESSA, all states are required annually to measure the achievement of at least 95 percent of all students in each student subgroup. When measuring, calculating, and reporting proficiency rates, states are required to include either a denominator equal to 95 percent of all students (and of each student subgroup as the case may be) or the number of students participating in the assessments. (See Section 111 l(c)(4)(E)(ii) of ESSA) For schools that fail to achieve 95 percent participation, any student below the 95 percent threshold will therefore be counted as “not proficient” in the calculation of proficiency rates even though they did not take the exam. NJDOE is proposing to factor the participation rate into its school accountability system by applying the minimum requirements of Section 1111 ( c )( 4 )(E) of ESSA. Therefore, NJDOE will utilize the required methodology described above as its method of factoring the requirement for 95 percent student participation in assessments into the statewide school accountability system. NJDOE will look for additional guidance from the U.S. Department of Education to comply with this section. To ensure schools and school communities have as much actionable information as possible and upon the recommendation from stakeholders, the NJDOE has committed to making proficiency results publicly available in two ways: 1) with participation rate factored in, or based on at least 95% of students in tested grades and 2) without participation rate, or based on the actual number of tested students. (p. 75) |
| New Mexico | Participation is gauged as the percentage of students who completed a valid scorable test when compared to enrollment figures averaged from several time points near the test window. Participation rates for high school mathematics require a denominator that is comprised of the enrollment counts in a relevant course. A student who is eligible for more than one assessment, such as an 8th grader taking Algebra I (i.e., who can take either the Math 8 or Algebra I assessment), must be assessed in the content that is considered more rigorous or of typically a higher grade level, and the student will not be expected to participate in more than one assessment. These students will be counted in the denominator of the participation rate that is applicable to the assessed content. The combined weighted percentages across courses, within content (math or ELA), will be used to derive the final rates within the school and within the LEA. In order to meet the required participation, both ELA and math must each have rates that, when rounded, account for 95 percent or more of the eligible students. Failure to meet one of the two, that is, either ELA or math, results in the school not having met participation targets. This is in addition to ensuring that the denominator of the Academic Achievement indicator includes the greater of 95 percent of all enrolled students or the number of students participating in the assessments. Participation is computed for students in the conventional subgroups of ethnicity/race, students with disabilities, English learners, and economically disadvantaged, as well as for all students. The accountability, for which these rates apply, is subject to a minimum group size of 30, but rates are reported down to 10 or more students within a school across all grade levels. PED will include at least 95 percent of students in the denominator when calculating the academic achievement indicator. When a school’s participation rate is less than 95 percent, the denominator of the academic achievement indicator will include 95 percent of students eligible to take the assessment. When a school’s participation rate is 95 percent or higher, the denominator of the academic achievement indicator will include all eligible students. This will ensure that the metric for this indicator represents overall school performance. (p. 89) |
| New York | NYSED will factor the 95% participation rate requirement into the Academic Achievement Index, as described above. The NYSED will require districts and schools with a consistent pattern of testing fewer than 95% of students in their general population or 95% of their students in one or more specific subgroups to create a plan that will address low testing rates resulting directly or indirectly from actions taken by the school or district, which we are calling institutional exclusion, while recognizing the rights of parents and students. New York State plans to use an n-size of 40 for determining participation rate in order to ensure that the non-participation of two students does not result in a group of students failing to meet the 95% assessment participation rate requirement. The Department will provide guidance that identifies the minimum requirements of this plan, which will include an analysis of the cause for low participation and a list of potential mitigating actions that the school will seek to pursue in the following year. NYSED will also require districts that evidence exclusion to implement a corrective measure as part of a plan to be executed over the course of multiple years, such as the one listed below:
• Schools that persistently and substantially fail to meet the 95% participation requirement must conduct a participation rate self-assessment and develop a participation rate improvement plan. Schools that fail to meet the 95% participation requirement and that rank in the bottom 10% of participation across the State will be required to submit their self-assessment and participation rate improvement plan to NYSED for the Commissioner’s approval no less than three months prior to the next test administration period. • Schools that implement a school improvement plan and do not improve their participation rate receive a district participation rate audit, and the district must develop an updated participation rate improvement plan for the school. • Districts with schools that implement the district’s improvement plan and do not improve their participation rate must contract with a BOCES to conduct a participation rate audit and develop an updated participation rate improvement plan. • Districts that have schools that implement the BOCES improvement plan and do not improve their participation rate may be required by the Department to undertake activities to raise student participation in State assessments. New York State is continuing efforts to increase participation in the Grades 3-8 ELA and mathematics tests across the State: • Responding to feedback from educators and parents, New York State reduced the number of test questions and converted to untimed testing so that students could work at their own pace and focus on their proficiency in the learning standards. New York State beginning in 2018-19 will reduce from three to two days the administration period for the grade 3-8 ELA and math assessments. • The Department has engaged the advice of nationally recognized consultants, and its own Technical Advisory Committee, to ensure that the technical quality of the tests is maintained as changes are made. • In addition, New York State intends to apply for participation in the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority, once the application is released. The Department will develop the application, in coordination with LEAs, to identify innovations that will address participation rates, as well as improve measurement of student proficiency. The involvement of teachers, school administrators, parents, advocates, and the public in the development of new learning standards and assessments has significantly increased in recent years. Starting in 2015, all questions on the Grades 3-8 ELA and mathematics tests are reviewed by at least 22 New York State educators, and, starting in 2018, all test questions will be written by New York State educators. The Department has also engaged in extensive public outreach, including the AimHIGHNY online survey, which was completed by 10,500 participants; the creation of an Assessment Toolkit providing districts and schools with tools to communicate the importance of State assessments with their constituents; the informational website “Assessments 101” designed for use by teachers and parents; and direct communications made by the Commissioner of Education through face-to-face meetings and an increased media presence across the State. (p. 82-83) |
| North Carolina | In the statewide accountability system, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for all students, the greater of either 95 percent of all students or the number of students participating in the assessment will, for the purposes of measuring, calculating and reporting, be the denominator. Additionally, in the statewide accountability system, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for any subgroup of students, the greater of either 95 percent of the subgroup or the number of students in the subgroup participating in the assessment will, for the purposes of measuring, calculating and reporting, be the denominator. (pp. 54-55) |
| North Dakota | The State ESSA Plan provides for the differentiated identification of any school or district, whose participation rate on the state’s academic assessments in either or both English language arts/literacy and mathematics, in the composite or within any designated subgroup. If a school or district were to evidence participation rates less than 95%, that school or district would be marked as demonstrating insufficient participation on the school’s or district’s public reports, indicating a reduction in program status, and requiring an improvement plan. Any improvement plan prepared by the school or district must include outreach efforts to parents, students, and the community, presenting the merits of participation in the state assessments and other activities, whose implementation provides heighten prospects for improved participation among students. (p. 70) |
| Ohio | 95 Percent Test Participation Consideration: Test participation remains a priority. All subgroups continue to be expected to assess at least 95 percent of their students in each subgroup on the state’s English language arts and math assessments. The subgroup participation rate will be reported on the report cards. The participation rate will also be evaluated holistically with English language arts and mathematics, if a school or district does not meet the 95 percent threshold their preliminary point total on the Gap Closing Component will be reduced proportionally to the degree in which they missed the 95 percent threshold. The score reduction will use 40 as the minimum number of students required to calculate a score reduction, as the number is based on all students and not any one individual subgroup. (p. 33) Ohio incorporates student participation requirements into multiple measures in its accountability system.
• The Performance Index score is calculated based on the number of tests that should have been taken versus using just the tests that had actual scores reported. A school or district earns zero points for every test not taken. Untested students lower the Performance Index score compared to what it would otherwise be with 100 percent participation. Since the rating is assigned based on the percent of possible points earned, a school or district with untested students can see its rating drop by one or even two levels if not enough students participate. • The state’s Gap Closing Component includes a participation rate calculation that factors into the final rating issued for each school and district. A school or district that does not meet the 95 percent participation threshold will see a proportional deduction in component points. (pp. 45-46) |
| Oklahoma | The state maintains student enrollment in a statewide student information system (the Wave). In accordance with the ESSA and to maintain a valid system of school accountability, all students who are enrolled in grades 3-8 and 11 at the time of testing are required to participate. All high school students must take the college- and career-ready assessment, as well as any enhancement items needed for science and U.S. history. Schools with participation rates for all students lower than 95% will be given a minus after their overall Oklahoma School Report Card grade. Likewise, any school that has one or more ESSA subgroups of students with less than a 95% participation rate will receive a minus after their overall report card grade. If a school has special circumstances (i.e., the degree to which the school missed the requirement, disproportionately skewed data because of small N-size student subgroups, etc.), it can petition the OSDE for a special exemption. Figure 12 simulates how the state will take into account the 95% participation rate on the school report card. The “All Students” accountability subgroup shows 95% tested, but the “American Indian/Alaska Native” subgroup only tested 64%. Therefore, the letter grade for this sample school would include an asterisk (*). (pp. 100-101)
 |
| Oregon | Schools with one or more student groups missing the 95% participation rate target will be identified for targeted improvement for participation and will be required to create and implement a plan for improving participation rates. (p. 59) |
| Pennsylvania | School-level participation rates are published within the state’s annual public-facing school progress reports. Schools with participation rates below 95 percent will be required to develop and implement state-approved improvement plans and complete a school- or LEA-level assessment audit. (p. 47) |
| Rhode Island | The Rhode Island school report cards will include clear and explicit reporting of student participation on the state assessments, and will clearly indicate on the school report card instances when the participation falls below 95 percent for all students or any subgroup. If participation falls below 95 percent, LEAs will be required to submit a plan to engage their community to build understanding of and support for participating in state testing. In addition, schools will not be eligible to receive a five star classification rating if their “all-students” subgroup falls below 95 percent. Additionally, the denominator in calculating the Academic Proficiency Index (section 4.iv.a.) will be the number of students participating in the state assessments, or 95 percent of the full academic year enrollment, whichever is greater. This will penalize schools with less than 95 percent participation in their Academic Proficiency Index measure. (pp. 45-46) |
| South Carolina | If a school tests less than 95 percent of eligible students, then the school cannot receive the highest rating in Achievement and instead will be reduced by one rating level. Also, schools that persistently test less than 95 percent of eligible students must submit a plan to the SCDE outlining how the school will increase the percentage of students tested. (p. 27) Schools that do not have 95 percent of students participating in state testing for mathematics, reading/language arts, and federally required grades for science: • May not receive the highest rating in achievement or in the summative rating. • Must develop a plan monitored by the SCDE to test 95 percent. • Will have a zero (0) factored into the achievement rating for all students and subjects not tested. • May have Title I funds reduced if the problem persists for more than one year. (p. 71) |
| South Dakota | In order to appropriately measure the progress of all students and all schools in serving those students, ESSA lays out that all students must participate in the statewide assessment. South Dakota takes this responsibility seriously and overall has achieved statewide participation rates of more than 99 percent. Yet not all schools and districts have consistently met this bar since Smarter Balanced testing began in 2014-15. Being a small state with small districts and a small number of districts, SD DOE closely tracks participation and provides the appropriate supports and outreach to districts that fail to meet the bar either at the school or district level as a whole, or for a particular subgroup of students. Virtually every district falling below the 95 percent requirement has not met the bar for unique reasons, and SD DOE believes those situations should be addressed on an individual basis. Schools not meeting participation requirements for their All Students group or for specific subgroups are selected for additional targeted assistance and monitoring by South Dakota’s assessment team during state testing, as detailed in the state’s peer review submission. Following the prescription in ESSA, SD DOE will calculate student achievement rates out of 95 percent of accountable students eligible to test annually, or those who participated, whichever is higher. SD DOE will also notify each district individually and work with the district to craft an improvement plan designed to address the reasons for which the district failed to test the required number of students. As an additional measure within the accountability system, SD DOE will award zero points for the students who did not participate, up to the 95 percent rate, as appropriate. See the Student Achievement section for a fuller illustration of this concept. (pp. 41-42) |
| Tennessee | Tennessee will continue to require a 95 percent participation rate for all students and for each subgroup of students as required under § 1111(c)(4)(E) of ESSA, and use participation rate as an indicator for accountability. TNReady will assess all students, including English learners (ELs) and students with disabilities. Schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation rate in any subject, either for all students or for any accountability subgroup included in the achievement indicator, will receive an “F” on the achievement indicator for the given group of students. We believe this consequence represents our strong commitment to ensure that all students are counted in the state’s accountability system. (pp. 50-51) |
| Texas | Calculations for academic achievement (proficiency) are based on scored tests (i.e., the denominator is scored tests only and does not include tests scored as “absent” or “other”). Participation is determined using a separate calculation of scored tests over all submitted test answer documents (i.e., scored, absent, and other). The numerator from the participation calculation is the denominator for the academic achievement (proficiency) rate calculation. Should the participation level for the all student groups or any student group fall below 95 percent, the denominator used for calculating academic achievement (proficiency) will be adjusted to include the necessary students to meet the 95 percent threshold. For 2021 accountability calculations, Texas only reported schools’ assessment participation rates in reading and mathematics. In alignment with the granted waiver, Texas did not recalculate the denominator used for calculating academic achievement in 2021. (p. 30) |
| Utah | In accordance with State law, Utah factors the requirement for 95 percent student participation in statewide assessments into the accountability system by publishing the school’s participation rate on a school’s report card (UCA section 53E-5-211). The participation rate calculated for reporting purposes will include students who do not participate in an assessment due to parent opt-out provisions prescribed in State law (UCA section 53G-6-803). Utah law authorizes a parent to excuse a student from taking a statewide assessment (U.C.A. § 53G-6-803). Compliance with this provision of State law makes it impossible for the USBE to ensure compliance with the 95 percent requirement. However, as required by ESSA, the achievement indicator calculations for Federal accountability will differ from the State calculations. Specifically, Utah will calculate the achievement indicator in accordance with ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii), effectively counting non-tested students in excess of five percent as non-proficient for purposes of accountability and identification of schools for support and improvement under ESSA. The achievement indicator is one indicator within accountability system that accounts for 25% of a high school’s overall accountability score and 37% of an elementary or middle school’s overall accountability score. Because State law conflicts with the 95% achievement indicator calculation requirement (ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii)), complying with this requirement means that accountability scores calculated for Federal accountability will differ from accountability scores calculated for State accountability, essentially bifurcating our accountability system for reporting purposes and school improvement identification. (pp. 46-47) |
| Vermont | Vermont schools’ participation rates on the ELA and mathematics assessments currently consistently exceed the 95% threshold established by US ED. The summative score for each school and student group will be multiplied by the percent of test takers if participation falls below 95% and the test-taking group has 25 or more students. This proposal reinforces expectations established in Vermont policy (the Education Quality Standards) and state law requiring that students are assessed annually. Vermont is also currently adopting proficiency based learning, which emphasizes that scores are for the learning demonstrated and not ancillary behaviors. By having participation named as a key variable, and not hidden within a larger equation or weighting conversation, we operate in parallel to that effort. (pp. 71-72) |
| Virginia | Schools that do not meet the 95% participation rate will be required to develop a plan that includes strategies for meeting participation requirements. Schools that do not meet the participation rate for three or more years, or that do not demonstrate progress towards meeting the 95% participation rate, will be required to implement additional actions and interventions as appropriate. (p. 29) |
| Washington | Washington shall calculate academic achievement (proficiency rates) according to ESSA, which requires the denominator for the achievement calculations to be the number of students participating in the assessments or 95 percent of all students, whichever is greater. Proficiency = [among students in the denominator, the number that achieved Level 3 or 4 on the assessment] / [95 percent of the number of enrolled students or the number of tested students (whichever is greater)] In this way, students who don’t participate in the assessment are counted as not meeting standard. By using this calculation, Washington embeds the nonparticipation rate in accountability. Schools or subgroups with larger numbers of non-participants will have proportionate decreases in demonstrated achievement rates. Washington will include only students enrolled at least half the school year, as required in ESSA. This is defined as enrolled in a school on October 1st and enrolled for at least 150 cumulative days at the same school during the school year. Washington defines a school year as September 1 through June 1. If a school does not meet the 95 percent participation, this issue must be addressed in their school improvement plan. The plan must address any population of students (the “ALL” and/or any subgroup) that are not meeting the 95 percent participation rate. The plan must include goals and actions a district or school will take that will ensure that 95 percent of the students will participate. Any school/district that does not meet the 95 percent participation rate may not receive state or national awards that are based on elements of the accountability plan. If a school does not meet the participation rate of 95 percent for three consecutive years, the school’s accountability rating will be lowered by one step (1–10). (pp. 49-50) |
| West Virginia | In accordance with the ESSA requirement that at least ninety-five percent (95%) of students are included in the determination of academic proficiency calculations, participation rates are included in determining school performance on the academic indicator measures for ELA and mathematics. The calculation will be carried out for each content area separately based on the respective content area participation rates. As noted in the specification of the academic indicator measures, the determination will be based on the performance of students with full academic year (FAY) status. In the calculation, the numerator will represent the sum of achievement points earned by FAY students. The denominator will represent 95% of FAY students enrolled, or the number of FAY students assessed, whichever is greater. (p. 38) |
| Wisconsin | Achievement calculations will be based upon the higher of 95 percent of students enrolled for the full academic year (FAY) in the statewide annual assessments or the number of FAY students tested in excess of 95 percent. All calculations will be conducted both for the all students group and for each subgroup that meets the minimum group size requirement (n=20). Wisconsin defines FAY as enrollment from the 3rd Friday of September through completion of statewide testing. (p. 48) |
| Wyoming | There is a participation requirement of 95%. Non-participants in excess of 5% are counted as “not proficient” on the state assessment and will be included in the Achievement indicator. The participation rate is computed for all students with an active enrollment in the school during the test window. (p. 26) |
Table B-2. Content Areas Explicitly Identified in State Plans
| State | Reading/Language Arts | Mathematics | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | |
| AK | X | X | |
| AZ | X | X | |
| AR | |||
| CA | |||
| CO | X | X | |
| CT | |||
| DE | |||
| DC | |||
| FL | X | X | |
| GA | |||
| HI | |||
| ID | |||
| IL | X | X | Science |
| IN | X | X | |
| IA | |||
| KS | |||
| KY | |||
| LA | X | X | |
| ME | X | X | |
| MD | |||
| MA | |||
| MI | |||
| MN | |||
| MS | |||
| MO | X | X | |
| MT | X | X | |
| NE | |||
| NV | X | X | |
| NH | |||
| NJ | |||
| NM | X | X | |
| NY | X | X | |
| NC | |||
| ND | X | X | |
| OH | X | X | |
| OK | X | X | Science, U.S. History |
| OR | |||
| PA | |||
| RI | |||
| SC | X | X | Science |
| SD | |||
| TN | |||
| TX | X | X | |
| UT | |||
| VT | X | X | |
| VA | |||
| WA | |||
| WV | X | X | |
| WI | |||
| WY | |||
| Total | 21 | 21 | 3 |
Table B-3a. Components of State Plans Regarding 95% Participation Rate Requirement
| State | Consequences | Escalating Consequences |
Improvement Plan |
Supports and Resources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | X | X | X |
| AK | X | X | ||
| AZ | X | X | ||
| AR | X | X | X | |
| CA | ||||
| CO | X | X | ||
| CT | X | |||
| DE | X | X | X | |
| DC | X | X | X | |
| FL | X | X | X | |
| GA | ||||
| HI | ||||
| ID | X | X | X | |
| IL | ||||
| IN | ||||
| IA | ||||
| KS | X | X | X | |
| KY | ||||
| LA | X | |||
| ME | X | X | ||
| MD | ||||
| MA | ||||
| MI | X | X | ||
| MN | ||||
| MS | X | |||
| MO | X | |||
| MT | ||||
| NE | X | |||
| NV | X | X | X | X |
| NH | ||||
| NJ | ||||
| NM | ||||
| NY | X | X | X | |
| NC | ||||
| ND | X | X | ||
| OH | X | |||
| OK | ||||
| OR | ||||
| PA | X | X | ||
| RI | X | X | ||
| SC | X | X | ||
| SD | X | X | X | |
| TN | X | |||
| TX | ||||
| UT | ||||
| VT | ||||
| VA | X | X | X | |
| WA | X | X | X | |
| WV | ||||
| WI | ||||
| WY | ||||
| Total | 28 | 10 | 18 | 7 |
Table B-3b. Components of State Plans (Continued)
| State | Monitoring/Audits | Interventions | Penalty | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | |||
| AK | ||||
| AZ | X | X | X | |
| AR | X | |||
| CA | ||||
| CO | X | |||
| CT | X | |||
| DE | X | |||
| DC | X | X | ||
| FL | X | |||
| GA | ||||
| HI | ||||
| ID | X | X | ||
| IL | ||||
| IN | ||||
| IA | ||||
| KS | ||||
| KY | ||||
| LA | X | |||
| ME | ||||
| MD | ||||
| MA | ||||
| MI | ||||
| MN | ||||
| MS | X | |||
| MO | X | |||
| MT | ||||
| NE | X | |||
| NV | X | X | X | |
| NH | ||||
| NJ | ||||
| NM | ||||
| NY | X | X | ||
| NC | ||||
| ND | X | |||
| OH | X | |||
| OK | ||||
| OR | ||||
| PA | X | |||
| RI | X | |||
| SC | X | X | X | |
| SD | X | X | ||
| TN | X | |||
| TX | ||||
| UT | ||||
| VT | ||||
| VA | X | |||
| WA | X | |||
| WV | ||||
| WI | ||||
| WY | ||||
| Total | 7 | 6 | 16 | 5 |
Table B-4a. Required Components of States’ Participation Improvement Plans
| State | Improvement Plan |
Identify Reasons for Low Participation |
Documentation of Past Efforts |
Strategies/ Future Steps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | |||
| AK | X | X | X | |
| AZ | ||||
| AR | X | X | ||
| CA | ||||
| CO | X | X | X | |
| CT | ||||
| DE | X | X | ||
| DC | ||||
| FL | X | X | ||
| GA | ||||
| HI | ||||
| ID | X | |||
| IL | ||||
| IN | ||||
| IA | ||||
| KS | X | |||
| KY | ||||
| LA | ||||
| ME | X | X | X | |
| MD | ||||
| MA | ||||
| MI | ||||
| MN | ||||
| MS | ||||
| MO | ||||
| MT | ||||
| NE | ||||
| NV | X | |||
| NH | ||||
| NJ | ||||
| NM | ||||
| NY | X | X | X | |
| NC | ||||
| ND | X | |||
| OH | ||||
| OK | ||||
| OR | ||||
| PA | X | |||
| RI | X | |||
| SC | X | |||
| SD | X | X | X | |
| TN | ||||
| TX | ||||
| UT | ||||
| VT | ||||
| VA | X | X | ||
| WA | X | X | ||
| WV | ||||
| WI | ||||
| WY | ||||
| Total | 18 | 3 | 2 | 10 |
Table B-4b. Required Components of States’ Participation Improvement Plans (Continued)
| State | Parent/Community Engagement |
Involve Stakeholders |
Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| AL | |||
| AK | X | X | |
| AZ | |||
| AR | |||
| CA | |||
| CO | |||
| CT | |||
| DE | |||
| DC | |||
| FL | X | ||
| GA | |||
| HI | |||
| ID | X | ||
| IL | |||
| IN | |||
| IA | |||
| KS | |||
| KY | |||
| LA | |||
| ME | |||
| MD | |||
| MA | |||
| MI | |||
| MN | |||
| MS | |||
| MO | |||
| MT | |||
| NE | |||
| NV | X | ||
| NH | |||
| NJ | |||
| NM | |||
| NY | X | ||
| NC | |||
| ND | X | ||
| OH | |||
| OK | |||
| OR | |||
| PA | |||
| RI | X | ||
| SC | |||
| SD | |||
| TN | |||
| TX | |||
| UT | |||
| VT | |||
| VA | |||
| WA | |||
| WV | |||
| WI | |||
| WY | |||
| Total | 4 | 2 | 2 |
Table B-5. How States Include Participation Rates in Proficiency Rate Calculations
| State | Adjusting the Denominator | Counting Non-participants as Non-proficient or Giving Lowest Possible Score |
Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | ||
| AK | X | ||
| AZ | X | ||
| AR | X | ||
| CA | X | ||
| CO | X | ||
| CT | |||
| DE | |||
| DC | |||
| FL | X | X | |
| GA | X | ||
| HI | X | ||
| ID | X | ||
| IL | X | ||
| IN | X | ||
| IA | X | ||
| KS | X | ||
| KY | X | ||
| LA | |||
| ME | X | ||
| MD | X | ||
| MA | |||
| MI | X | ||
| MN | X | ||
| MS | |||
| MO | |||
| MT | X | ||
| NE | X | ||
| NV | X | ||
| NH | X | ||
| NJ | X | X | |
| NM | X | ||
| NY | X | ||
| NC | X | ||
| ND | |||
| OH | X | ||
| OK | X | ||
| OR | X | ||
| PA | X | ||
| RI | X | X | |
| SC | X | ||
| SD | X | ||
| TN | |||
| TX | X | ||
| UT | X | X | |
| VT | X | ||
| VA | X | ||
| WA | X | X | |
| WV | X | X | |
| WI | X | ||
| WY | X | ||
| Total | 29 | 15 | 4 |
Table B-6. Details and Specifications: How States Include Participation Rates in Proficiency Rate Calculations
| State | Details |
|---|---|
| Alabama | Academic Achievement Indicator Denominator—In calculating the Academic Achievement Indicator, the ALSDE will use, as the denominator of the calculation, the greater of 95 percent of all students (or all students in a subgroup), or the number of students participating in the assessment. If a school’s (or student subgroup’s) participation rate is 95 percent or greater, the denominator for purposes of calculating the Academic Achievement indicator is the number of students who were enrolled in the school at the time of testing. If, on the other hand, a school’s (or student subgroup’s) participation rate is less than 95 percent, ALSDE will adjust the denominator of the Academic Achievement indicator such that the denominator is equal to 95 percent of all students enrolled. (p. 35) |
| Alaska | If a school meets the participation requirement, the denominator will be all full academic year (FAY) students with a valid score. If a school does not meet the participation rate requirement, the denominator will be 95 percent of all FAY students in grades 3-9. ESSA does not provide flexibility for a participation n-size when calculating the Academic Achievement indicator. (pp. 21-22) A participation rate of less than 95 percent on statewide mathematics and reading/language arts assessments is factored into the calculation of the proficiency indicator. If a school tested under 95% of their eligible students, then a penalty term is added to the denominator. The penalty term is equal to the number tests the school should have administered to have 95% tested. Simplified example: School A had 100 students eligible to assess in mathematics. They tested 93 with 49 earning a passing score. Percent proficient is the ratio is 49/93. Since they needed two more students to reach 95%, their ratio is changed to 49/(93+2) or 49/95. This will help ensure that the requirement of 95% student participation is met. (p. 29) |
| Arizona | The state assessment and alternative state assessment for ELA and Mathematics proficiency calculations include all grades 3-8, once in high school, and all subgroups. Using the same indicator as the measure in Arizona’s long-term goals and measures of interim progress will help achieve those goals. By having a higher weight on proficiency than on other indicators, it will place the focus on students achieving a proficiency score, thus increasing the chance to meet the goals. The Academic Achievement Indicator will be worth 60% or a maximum of 60 points of all models. It will include both the state assessment and the state alternative assessment. The numerator will count the number of students scoring in the proficiency categories, whereas the denominator will include all those who tested, with a penalty if not reaching 95% participation. That percent will be multiplied by 60 points for the calculation of this indicator. In the calculation table below the indicators have been inserted to show the calculation of all the indicators. There will not be a growth measure for high school. (p. 17) |
| Arkansas | In the Arkansas Educational Support and Accountability System, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for all students, 95 percent will be used for the denominator for purposes of measuring, calculating, and reporting. Additionally, in the support accountability system, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for any subgroup of students, 95 percent will be used as the denominator for each subgroup for the purposes of measuring, calculating and reporting. All calculations will be conducted both for the all students group and for each student group meeting minimum group size requirements (N=15). (p. 66) |
| California | Also, as discussed above, in the event a school or student group has a participation rate below 95 percent, California will assign the lowest possible scale score (LOSS) to the number of students needed to bring the participation rate to 95 percent. The identification of schools in the fall of 2020 will ensure that the LOSS is factored into the participation rate for the Academic Indicator and is used in assistance and support determinations at the earliest point possible. (p. 75) |
| Colorado | As requested by USDE, Colorado is calculating non-participants in excess of 5%, as not-proficient records for the ESSA school identification calculations. More specifically, Colorado will assign excess non-participants to the lowest CMAS scale score of 650, which is the performance level of “Did not yet meet expectations” which ensures that all schools with non-participants in excess of 5% will have mean scale scores lower than they would have otherwise received. (p. 61) * The accountability participation rate for a school/district/disaggregated group removes parent excusals from the denominator. (p. 84) |
| Connecticut | |
| Delaware | |
| District of Columbia | |
| Florida | If a school does not assess 95% of all students, then the achievement component of the federal percent of points index will be modified to count non-tested students in the denominator up to the 95% threshold. Thus, these students will be treated as not proficient in the achievement indicator of the federal percent of points index. (p. 25) |
| Georgia | If the participation rate for all students or a subgroup of students falls below 95%, the achievement score for that group of students will be multiplied by the actual participation rate divided by 95%. This ensures the adjustment is proportional to the extent to which the 95% participation rate was not attained. The adjusted achievement score will be utilized in College and Career Ready Performance Index calculations, including Content Mastery, Closing Gaps, and progress toward long-term goals. In the example above, School A has a participation rate of 98% and therefore will not receive an achievement score adjustment. Their achievement score of 76.5% will be utilized in accountability calculations. School B, however, has a participation rate of 80%. Therefore, School B’s achievement score of 93.8% will be multiplied by the participation rate divided by 95% (80%/95%) to yield an adjustment achievement score of 78.9%. The adjusted achievement score of 78.9% will be utilized in accountability calculations. It is important to note that this method of applying the participation rate complies with the ESSA requirement to utilize the greater of the denominator of tested students or 95% of students as it yields the same results. For example, in the case of School B, if the achievement numerator of 75 was divided by 95% of enrolled students (95% of 100 students is 95 students) instead of the number of tested students (80), the achievement rate would be 75/95 or 78.9%. Utilizing the method described provides for the same adjustment required in ESSA while presenting it in a straightforward, transparent manner that can be understood and replicated by the public on the reporting system. Georgia’s proposal to adjust the 95 percent participation requirement is consistent with other state plans that have been approved. In particular, Vermont and Michigan’s approved plans include very similar proposals to that of Georgia. Vermont will multiply the summative score for each school and student group by the percent of test takers if participation falls below 95%. Michigan will multiply the proficiency rate by the participation rate when the participation rate is below 95%. (p. 47) |
| Hawaii | Hawaii continues to require schools to have a minimum participation rate of 95 percent for the annual statewide assessments. Hawaii proposes to apply a non-proficient outcome to any non-participant in each student group—all students and each subgroup—not meeting the 95 percent participation requirement up to 95 percent of such group. For example, if 170 of 200 students participated in the assessments, that would equate to a participation rate of 85 percent. In order for the school to have met the 95 percent participation rate, an additional 20 students should have been tested (170+20)/200 = 95 percent. Because the school was 20 students short of the 95 percent participation rate, an additional 20 nonproficient students will be added to the school’s proficiency rate. If 85 of the 170 students tested were proficient, the school would have had a proficiency rate of 50.0 percent; however, the 20 students added to the denominator effectively increases the number of non-proficient students by 20. This lowers the proficiency rate to 85/(170+20) = 44.7 percent. The addition of the 20 students to the denominator lowers the academic achievement rate. HIDOE will require schools that do not meet the 95 percent participation requirement to create a plan for corrective action to increase student participation in statewide academic assessments. (p. 57) |
| Idaho | Additionally, “If a school district does not meet the ninety-five percent (95%) participation target for the current year, the participation rate can be calculated by the most current three (3) year average of participation.” (p. 36) |
| Illinois | A school’s ELA, math and science proficiency rates are calculated out of either the number of students who tested, or 95 percent of those who should have. (p. 80) |
| Indiana | If a school satisfies the requirement to assess at least 95 percent of students enrolled for 90 percent of the school year then the participation rate defaults to 100 percent (multiplier of one). If a school fails to satisfy the 95 percent participation requirement, then the proficiency rate for the respective subject area is multiplied by the actual participation rate in decimal form. If a school satisfies the requirement to assess at least 95 percent of the students enrolled at the school during the test window, then the participation multiplier defaults to one. If a school fails to satisfy the 95 percent participation rate requirement, then the proficiency rate for the respective subject area is multiplied by the actual participation rate. (p. 36) |
| Iowa | The numerator for participation is the number of students who scored proficient on the state assessment. The denominator of the Academic Achievement indicator will be calculated in order to ensure maximum participation in the assessment. Therefore, if participation is at or above 95 percent, the denominator will be the number of students tested. If participation is less than 95 percent, the denominator will be 95 percent of the students enrolled. (p. 56) |
| Kansas | ESEA section 1111(c)(4)E(ii) requires a State to calculate the Academic Achievement indicator by including in the denominator the greater of 95% of all students (or 95% of all students in a subgroup) or the number of students participating in the assessments. Kansas will comply with this requirement. (p. 25) |
| Kentucky | To summarize, if a student does not participate (via repeated absences or refusal to enter test answers) and does not have an approved exemption, the lowest reportable score on the appropriate test shall be assigned for accountability calculations for the school and district. This means, every student enrolled in the school and district is included in the calculation. The total number of students in the school is included in the denominator. If the student does not test, a novice (or zero points) is included in the numerator. (p. 76) |
| Louisiana | |
| Maine | In computing a school’s academic achievement indicator for an assessment in a content area (math or ELA), the denominator will be the greater of: 95% of all students in the grades assessed who are enrolled in the school; or, the number of all such students who participated in the content area assessment. (p. 49) |
| Maryland | States are required to include either a denominator equal to 95 percent of all students and of each student group or the number of students participating in the assessments. (See Section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii) of ESSA). For schools that fail to achieve 95 percent participation, any student below the 95 percent threshold will be counted as “not proficient” in the calculation of proficiency rates even though they did not take the exam. (p. 44) |
| Massachusetts | |
| Michigan | In order to include 95% or the number of students assessed in this indicator (whichever is greater), the participation rate is multiplied by the proficiency rate when the participation rate is below 95%. (p. 28) In order to satisfy the ESSA requirement that at least 95% of students are included in the proficiency calculations, participation rates are included in determining the percentage of the proficiency target met. Only students with full academic year (FAY) status are included in proficiency calculations. The proficiency calculation used to populate a subgroup’s performance in a specific content area includes the participation rate (due to requirements that at least 95% of students are included in the calculation). The calculation is: (Participation rate of full academic year students) x (proficiency rate of full academic year students), or to break it out further: (FAY tested/FAY enrolled) x (FAY proficient/FAY tested). (pp. 44-45) |
| Minnesota | Students expected to test but who do not receive a valid score will be included in the denominator for calculations of academic achievement unless they have a documented medical excuse. Students who score at the “does not meet standards” or “partially meets standards” achievement levels and students who do not participate in testing will be included in the denominator of the rate calculation but will not be awarded any points in the calculation. Students who do not participate in the test will be identified in state records and in communications with families as not participating; they will not be described as failing to meet standards. (p. 36). |
| Mississippi | |
| Missouri | |
| Montana | For any schools that do not meet the 95 percent student participation rate (i.e., the number of students with valid assessment scores divided by the number of students enrolled at the school during the testing window snapshot) in statewide mathematics and reading/language arts assessments, either overall for all students or for any student subgroup consisting of 10 or more students, schools will be assigned the lowest average score (i.e., novice) on each measure for the missing student values. (p. 29) |
| Nebraska | Status is calculated by determining the percent of students proficient on state assessments for all available grade levels for Math and English Language Arts for the current year. The denominator will be the greater of 95 percent of all students, or the number of students participating in the assessments. (p. 80) |
| Nevada | 95% Participation: Schools who do not meet the 95% participation expectation are allowed to meet the participation expectation through a 2-and 3-year average. The same uniformed procedure is used to combine data across school years and grade spans. The current school year data is combined with the school year data immediately preceding for a 2-year average. For a 3-year average the current school year data is combined with the immediately preceding data from the previous two years. When combining data across school years, the total number of students in each subgroup is summed in order to determine if the subgroup meets N-size requirements. (p. 64) |
| New Hampshire | The State school report card will report student participation on the State assessments or on local and common PACE assessments, and will identify LEA’s where participation falls below 95 percent. In accordance with ESSA, “(E) Annual Measurement of Achievement,” the denominator in calculating the achievement index (Section 4.iv.a.) will be the number of students participating in the State or PACE assessments, or 95 percent of the full academic year enrollment, whichever is greater. (pp. 54-55) |
| New Jersey | Pursuant to Section 11 1 l(c)(4)(E) of ESSA, all states are required annually to measure the achievement of at least 95 percent of all students in each student subgroup. When measuring, calculating, and reporting proficiency rates, states are required to include either a denominator equal to 95 percent of all students (and of each student subgroup as the case may be) or the number of students participating in the assessments. (See Section 111 l(c)(4)(E)(ii) of ESSA) For schools that fail to achieve 95 percent participation, any student below the 95 percent threshold will therefore be counted as “not proficient” in the calculation of proficiency rates even though they did not take the exam. NJDOE is proposing to factor the participation rate into its school accountability system by applying the minimum requirements of Section 1111 ( c )( 4 )(E) of ESSA. Therefore, NJDOE will utilize the required methodology described above as its method of factoring the requirement for 95 percent student participation in assessments into the statewide school accountability system. (p. 75) |
| New Mexico | PED will include at least 95 percent of students in the denominator when calculating the academic achievement indicator. When a school’s participation rate is less than 95 percent, the denominator of the academic achievement indicator will include 95 percent of students eligible to take the assessment. When a school’s participation rate is 95 percent or higher, the denominator of the academic achievement indicator will include all eligible students. This will ensure that the metric for this indicator represents overall school performance. (p. 89) |
| New York | ELA and Math Performance Index = [(number of continuously enrolled tested students scoring at Level 2 + (Level 3 * 2) + (Level 4 * 2.5) ÷ the greater of the number of continuously enrolled tested students or 95% of continuously enrolled students] × 100. (p. 50) |
| North Carolina | In the statewide accountability system, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for all students, the greater of either 95 percent of all students or the number of students participating in the assessment will, for the purposes of measuring, calculating and reporting, be the denominator. Additionally, in the statewide accountability system, if a school does not meet the 95 percent participation requirement for any subgroup of students, the greater of either 95 percent of the subgroup or the number of students in the subgroup participating in the assessment will, for the purposes of measuring, calculating and reporting, be the denominator. (pp. 54-55) |
| North Dakota | |
| Ohio | The Performance Index score is calculated based on the number of tests that should have been taken versus using just the tests that had actual scores reported. A school or district earns zero points for every test not taken. Untested students lower the Performance Index score compared to what it would otherwise be with 100 percent participation. (p. 46) |
| Oklahoma | Oklahoma will incorporate assessment participation in its academic achievement indicator in compliance with ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E). The numerator will be the total points earned by all full academic year (FAY) students tested. The denominator will be the greater of the following: all FAY students tested or the minimum number that represents at least 95% of all FAY students and at least 95% of each subgroup that meets the minimum N-size. (p. 78) |
| Oregon | Achievement in ELA or Math =  Note that in this calculation non-participants are counted as not meeting standard. In this way, we are meeting the ESSA requirement for the achievement calculation and also including non-participation in the accountability system. Including non-participants in the indicator provides a proportionate response—those schools or districts with larger number of non-participants will see a proportionately large decrease in performance for this indicator. (p. 41) |
| Pennsylvania | Denominator: 95 percent of students enrolled in the school on the last day of the respective testing window who are full academic year OR the number of test takers among students enrolled in the school on the last day of the respective testing window who are full academic year, whichever is higher. (p. 32) |
| Rhode Island | A school’s Academic Proficiency Index will be calculated by summing all student points and then dividing by the greater of 95% of all students (or, when disaggregating data, 95% of all students in the subgroup) or the number of students participating in the assessments. Two years of data will be combined for calculation of each school’s Academic Proficiency Index. (p. 24) |
| South Carolina | Students who should have taken a subject area test, but did not, are assigned 0 points for that test and included in the denominator. (p. 23) |
| South Dakota | Following the prescription in ESSA, SD DOE will calculate student achievement rates out of 95 percent of accountable students eligible to test annually, or those who participated, whichever is higher. (p. 42) 1.Determine the denominator for the calculation. This number reflects the larger of either those students assessed or 95 percent of eligible students, as outlined in participation below. 2. If a school met participation requirements for all students, continue to Step 4. 3. If a school did not meet participation requirements, determine the number of students required to bring the school up to the 95 percent bar. The students represented here are given a zero point value. (p. 24) |
| Tennessee | |
| Texas | Should the participation level for the all student groups or any student group fall below 95 percent, the denominator used for calculating academic achievement (proficiency) will be adjusted to include the necessary students to meet the 95 percent threshold. (p. 30) |
| Utah | In accordance with ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii), the percentage is calculated out of the greater of all the school’s students participating in the assessment or 95 percent of enrolled students. (p. 30) As described in section A.4.iv.a of this document, points are allocated to schools for academic achievement in proportion to the percentage of the school’s students who score at or above the proficient level on a statewide assessment of ELA and mathematics. This percentage is calculated out of the greater of all the school’s students participating in the assessment or 95 percent of enrolled students, in accordance with ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii). (p. 39) Specifically, Utah will calculate the achievement indicator in accordance with ESEA section 1111(c)(4)(E)(ii), effectively counting non-tested students in excess of five percent as non-proficient for purposes of accountability and identification of schools for support and improvement under ESSA. (p. 46) |
| Vermont | The summative score for each school and student group will be multiplied by the percent of test takers if participation falls below 95% and the test-taking group has 25 or more students. (p. 71) |
| Virginia | To calculate the pass rate for this indicator, the denominator will be the greater of: 1) 95% of all students in the grades assessed who are enrolled in the school; or 2) the number of all such students who participated in the content area assessment. (p. 17) |
| Washington | Washington shall calculate academic achievement (proficiency rates) according to ESSA, which requires the denominator for the achievement calculations to be the number of students participating in the assessments or 95 percent of all students, whichever is greater. Proficiency = [among students in the denominator, the number that achieved Level 3 or 4 on the assessment] / [95 percent of the number of enrolled students or the number of tested students (whichever is greater)] In this way, students who don’t participate in the assessment are counted as not meeting standard. By using this calculation, Washington embeds the non-participation rate in accountability. Schools or subgroups with larger numbers of non-participants will have proportionate decreases in demonstrated achievement rates. (p. 49) |
| West Virginia | As noted in item number 3 above, should assessment participation fall below 95%, nonparticipants up to 95% of the students that should have been tested are retained in both the numerator and denominator of the calculation. In the numerator, however, they are assigned zero academic performance points and do not contribute positively to a schools’ performance determination. (p. 19) In the calculation, the numerator will represent the sum of achievement points earned by FAY students. The denominator will represent 95% of FAY students enrolled, or the number of FAY students assessed, whichever is greater. (p. 38) |
| Wisconsin | Achievement calculations will be based upon the higher of 95 percent of students enrolled for the full academic year (FAY) in the statewide annual assessments or the number of FAY students tested in excess of 95 percent. All calculations will be conducted both for the all students group and for each subgroup that meets the minimum group size requirement (n=20). Wisconsin defines FAY as enrollment from the 3rd Friday of September through completion of statewide testing. (p. 48) |
| Wyoming | There is a participation requirement of 95%. Non-participants in excess of 5% are counted as “not proficient” on the state assessment and will be included in the Achievement indicator. The participation rate is computed for all students with an active enrollment in the school during the test window. (p. 26) |
Table C-1. State Assessment Participation Opt-out Policies
| State | Details |
|---|---|
| Alabama | 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. https://www.alabamaachieves.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ASMT_202222_ACAPSummativeTestCoordinatorManualSpring2022_V1.0.pdf |
| Alaska | Bill was passed in 2016 that gives parent the right to opt their children out https://law.alaska.gov/pdf/bill-review/2016/001_JU2016200396.pdf Section 1 of the bill would amend AS 14.03 by adding a new section that details the rights of parents of children enrolled in public schools. This section would require school districts to adopt policies and procedures that allow a parent to object to and withdraw a child from a standards-based assessment or test required by the state or any activity, class, or program. This section would require that district policies recognize the authority of a parent to withdraw a child from an activity, class, program, or standards-based assessment or test because of a religious holiday, with “religious holiday” being defined by the parent. https://law.alaska.gov/pdf/bill-review/2016/001_JU2016200396.pdf Alaska law respects that parents have the right to exclude their students from participation in specific instructional activities and statewide assessments. Schools may not coerce parents or their students into participating in the assessments. - State Plan, p. 41 |
| Arizona | - No, a mandatory statewide assessment exam does not constitute a “learning material” or “activity” as contemplated by A.R.S. § 15-102. - No, a fair reading of the plain text in A.R.S. § 15-102 does not provide a basis for finding a parental right to opt out of state assessments. - No, the “Parents’ Bill of Rights” as set forth in A.R.S. §§ 1-601 and 602 does not encompass a right for parents to opt their children out of statewide assessments. - Because there is no parental right to opt out of a statewide assessment, children who attend school during testing windows must take the assessments as scheduled. - Posted 2015 - https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i15-008-r15-016 Arizona does not have any exemptions from participating in these assessments. Statewide Assessments are required by State and Federal Law. (State Law: ARS 15-741; Federal Law: 34 CFR 200.2 Participation in Assessments). - https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2022/12/Assessment%20Parent%20Guide.pdf |
| Arkansas | Federal and state law, as well as State Board of Education regulations, mandate testing for public school students in Arkansas. All students are expected to participate in state assessments. - https://dese.ade.arkansas.gov/Offices/learning-services/assessment-test-scores |
| California | Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a parent’s or guardian’s written request to school officials to excuse his or her child from any or all parts of the assessments administered pursuant to this chapter shall be granted. - https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§ionNum=60615. |
| Colorado | Section 1112(e)(2)(A) At the beginning of each school year, districts receiving Title I Part A funds shall notify all parents with students attending a Title I school, that they may request (and district must provide in a timely manner) information regarding Colorado’s or the districts policy regarding student participation in assessments. The district must inform parents of the policy, procedures and parental right to opt the child out of assessments where applicable. - https://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/ti/parents Opting out of Assessments At the beginning of each school year, a LEA that receives Title I, Part A funds must notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving these funds that the parents may request, and the LEA will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or LEA policy regarding student participation in any required assessments, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable. - https://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/parentnotificationrequirements |
| Connecticut | |
| Delaware | |
| District of Columbia | There is currently no opt-out policy. The assessment policy states that “All students enrolled in grades three (3) through eight (8) and grade ten (10) shall participate in the State-wide math and English language arts assessments.” Currently, the assessment policy requires that students take the assessment. There are currently no disciplinary consequences for a student who refuses to take the test. - https://sboe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sboe/page_content/attachments/Assessment%20FAQ.pdf There is currently no legislation banning parents from opting out of the assessments, nor is there legislation for an opt-out process. According to the assessment policy, eligible students are required to take any state-wide assessments. A child may be marked as absent for the time the child is out of school during assessments. - https://sboe.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sboe/page_content/attachments/Assessment%20FAQ.pdf |
| Florida | |
| Georgia | |
| Hawaii | Hawaii does not have an opt-out policy and expects all students enrolled to participate in the required assessments. - https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/Testing/testing1sheet.pdf |
| Idaho | Idaho does not have a student/parent opt-out policy. - https://www.sde.idaho.gov/assessment///files/announcements/Testing-Population-Requirements-Final.pdf |
| Illinois | There is no “opt out” provision. The expectation in state and federal law that all students must be assessed. The school is legally obligated to present the test to all students. If a student is not in attendance on the day of testing, the school must schedule a make-up session and present the test then. - https://www.isbe.net/Documents/FAQ95ParticipationStateAssessments.pdf |
| Indiana | Every student attending a public school, charter school, state-accredited non-public school, or Choice-participant school in Indiana must take required Indiana assessments. Pursuant to IC 20-33-2, it is a violation of Indiana’s compulsory school attendance laws for a parent/guardian to refuse to send his or her child to school for the purpose of avoiding tests, including state assessments, unless applicable under Part B. Additional consequences for failing to participate in a statewide assessment and procedures to manage students who refuse to participate should be determined at the school level. School administrators should be aware that section 1111(b)(2)(A) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA) requires the implementation of high-quality, student academic assessments in mathematics, reading or English/language arts (ELA), and science. Section 1111(b)(2)(B) (i)(II) requires these assessments be administered to all elementary and secondary school students. In addition, section 1111(c) \(4)(E) requires participation rates in statewide assessments of at least 95 percent for all students and each subgroup of students be factored into the state’s federal accountability system. Failure to participate in Indiana’s assessments may result in a lower federal accountability rating. Lastly, federal law requires that 100 percent of English learners (ELs) participate in the annual English language proficiency assessment (e.g., WIDA ACCESS). Indiana legislation (IC 20-32-5.1-18.8) offers some opt-out flexibility for students with disabilities if accommodations provided instructionally are unallowable on the statewide assessment. Schools shall provide notice to the parents/guardians of students enrolled in grades three, four, or five with an accommodation that is provided as part of the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), Section 504 Plan, Service Plan, or Choice Special Education Plan (CSEP) if the accommodation utilized by the student instructionally is unallowable on all or part of the statewide assessment. This notice must be provided to families by February 1, 2023. If the parent/guardian does not attend the annual review, the schools must provide this notice via certified mail or personal delivery. The schools, in collaboration with parents/guardians, will determine whether the student may be eligible to opt out of any applicable section of the statewide assessment. - https://www.in.gov/doe/files/2022-2023-Indiana-Assessments-Policy-Manual.pdf |
| Iowa | The Iowa Department of Education receives requests from parents and others that students be “opted out” of statewide assessments, district-wide assessments, and other assessments of student performance. The law provides for no “opt out.” - https://educateiowa.gov/pk-12/student-assessment-pk-12#Opting_Out_of_Testing |
| Kansas | |
| Kentucky | In Kentucky, districts are not permitted to honor a parent’s request to opt-out of statewide testing. Although parents have the right to opt their children out of public education by choosing home school or private school, parents do NOT have the right to pick and choose the provisions of public education with which they will comply. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires 95% participation of all students and each student group in the federally mandated state assessments. If fewer than 95% of students participate federal funding and waivers could be jeopardized. Testing all students allows us to identify trends for student groups that may otherwise go unseen. This provides educators the information needed to ensure all students’ educational needs are being met. Based on the data from our state assessments, we can identify the disparity in performance between groups and work toward closing achievement gaps. - https://education.ky.gov/AA/distsupp/Documents/Opting_out_of_testing.pdf Historically, Kentucky’s test participation rate has been very high. Opting-out of statewide testing is not an option. Although parents have the right to opt their children out of public education by choosing home school or private school, parents cannot choose the provisions of public education with which they will comply. In “Triplett vs. Livingston County Board of Education, 967 S.W.2d (Ky. App. 1997)”, the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the mandate of the Kentucky Board of Education that all students of public schools in the state participate in standardized assessments. Students may only be excused from the statewide assessment upon completion and approval of the Medical Nonparticipation request. - State Plan, p. 76 |
| Louisiana | |
| Maine | Federal statute requires that parents receive a notification indicating their right to request the districts policies and procedures regarding student participation in state and local assessments. When this information is requested, the district will provide all applicable information to families. The district should be prepared to provide families with their assessment related policies and procedures, this would include an opt-out procedure (if applicable). If the district does not have any policies or procedures regarding student participation in local and state assessments, the notification must still be issued and could then indicate that no written policies or procedures exist. - https://legislature.maine.gov/doc/3830 Maine Department of Education (Maine DOE) is required to annually assess public school students in grades 3-8 and at one point in high school in mathematics and R/LA, per the federal Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), Maine DOE is also required to assess public school students in science at three grade levels (grade 5, grade 8, and third year high school). Students who are eligible for assessment, but do not participate, count as non-participants in Maine’s accountability system. - https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/MECAS_Guidelines_2023-24.pdf |
| Maryland | There is no provision in State law that allows parents to “opt out” children from state assessments or that permits children to refuse to take assessments. - http://archives.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/stateboard/legalopinions/2010/docs/FrederickCo.BOE.Opin.No.16-13.pdf |
| Massachusetts | For students who choose not to participate, it is recommended that parents/guardians sign an acknowledgement of their children’s nonparticipation. If students do not wish to participate in an MCAS testing opportunity, and the parents/guardians agree, schools are encouraged to obtain their signatures on a form to document that the opportunity was offered and refused. - https://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/testadmin/nonpart/ |
| Michigan | While we support parents in making choices for their children, there is no “opt-out” of state assessments under state or federal law. Students who are not assessed will count against their school’s required 95 percent participation rate, which will create an incomplete picture of their school’s performance. - https://www.michigan.gov/mde/-/media/Project/Websites/mde/OEAA/M-STEP/S23-Superintendent-Parent-Letter.pdf?rev=1350cfd80dc14219a74132bc3b094463 |
| Minnesota | Student participation in state and locally required assessments is a parent/guardian choice. If you choose to have your student not participate in a statewide assessment, please provide a reason for your decision on the form. Contact your student’s school to learn more about locally required assessments. - https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=PROD058851&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary |
| Mississippi | Parents and guardians of children enrolled in the public schools of this state have a right to opt their children out of all or any specified part of tests administered under the statewide testing program required under this chapter. - http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2015/pdf/HB/1100-1199/HB1176IN.pdf |
| Missouri | |
| Montana | In Montana, there is no “opt out” law, and state law requires all students in public and accredited nonpublic schools to participate in state testing. In accordance with ESEA-ESSA Section 1112(e)(1)(B)(ii), parents may refuse to have their child participate in state assessments; however, under Montana’s compulsory school attendance laws this refusal reason does not exist (see §20-5-103, MCA). Schools must administer state assessments with or without accommodations based on individual student needs consistent with all state and federal laws and regulations (ARM 10.56.104). Procedures to notify families and manage participation reasons for students whose families refuse should be determined at the local level (see ARM 10.56.102(6) and MontCAS Parent Corner Page). - https://opi.mt.gov/Portals/182/Page%20Files/Statewide%20Testing/Participation/ MontCAS%20Policies%20and%20Procedures%20for%20Participation%20in%20State%20Assessments.pdf |
| Nebraska | |
| Nevada | |
| New Hampshire | New Hampshire state law permits a parent/legal guardian to exempt their student from participating in any of the required statewide assessments. School districts must ensure a form is provided for a parent/legal guardian to complete and sign in order to exempt their student from participating in the statewide assessment. A school district may use this parent opt-out form template; Spanish version of parent opt-out form template If a parent/legal guardian exempts their student, the school district and parent must agree upon an alternative educational activity during the testing period. It is recommended that the agreed upon activity is written on the exemption form that will be signed by the parent/legal guardian and school administrator, along with an acknowledgement statement that the exempted student will not receive an individual score or summary of academic performance based on the statewide assessment. - https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/division-of-education-and-analytic-resources/bureau-assessment-and-accountability/office-of-assessment |
| New Jersey | |
| New Mexico | New Mexico does not allow for parent refusals or “opt-outs” of required statewide assessments. The only allowable way for a student to not be tested is with an approved medical exemption. Under no circumstances should a district or charter school promote the idea of parental “opt-outs” of required assessments. - https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Assessment-Newsletter-05.03.22.pdf |
| New York | ESSA requires that every state assess all students in grades 3-8 in language arts or reading and math each year. States must assess all students at least once in high school in language arts and math. New York State does not have any laws regarding parental rights to choose whether their children participate in state testing, but federal requirements include: • 95% of students in each public school, including charter schools, are required to participate yearly in required state assessments. o This applies to all student subgroups, which include racial/ethnic groups, English Language Learners, low income students, and students with disabilities. • If requested, school districts and charter schools are required to provide parents with information on state or local policies regarding the rights of parents to choose to not have their children participate in state testing. • States are not required to create or change any laws they have in place regarding a parental decision on participation in assessments. - https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/state-assessment/2020-additional-info-assessments-essa.pdf - https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/essa/essa-fact-sheet-assessment-parents.pdf |
| North Carolina | All students in North Carolina (including students with disabilities and students identified as ELs) are required to participate in the Annual Testing Program per state and federal requirements. North Carolina does not allow any student to opt out of required testing unless there are extenuating circumstances, primarily related to serious health conditions. N.C. Admin. - https://www.dpi.nc.gov/documents/accountability/testing/north-carolina-test-coordinators-handbook/open |
| North Dakota | As a custodial parent of the student named above, I am directing the school district to withhold the administration of the following assessment to the student during the school year indicated above. - https://www.nd.gov/dpi/sites/www/files/documents/SFN%20Forms/SFN61287.pdf |
| Ohio | Federal and state laws require all districts and schools to test all students in specific grades and courses. There is no state law that allows a parent or student to opt out of state testing, and there is no state test opt-out procedure or form. To help parents make informed decisions, schools should tell parents, in writing, the possible consequences of withdrawing their children from certain state tests. More information on student participation in state tests is available on the Department’s website. https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Literacy/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee/Third-Grade-Reading-Guarantee-Guidance-Updates-2024-1.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US#:~:text=Student%20Participation%20in%20State%20Tests,opt%2Dout%20procedure%20or%20form |
| Oklahoma | Title 70, § 1210.508 and § 1210.523 of the Oklahoma Statutes requires that the State Board of Education conduct criterion-referenced tests in grades three through eight and conduct end-of-instruction exams in grades nine through twelve. In addition to the statutory requirements, the State Board of Education’s administrative rule 210:10-13-2 states that “All public school districts shall administer the state mandated academic achievement tests of the OSTP to all students enrolled in the designated grades.” Therefore, school districts are required to provide a test to every student enrolled in respective testing grades. Both the statute and the language in the promulgated rule require every school district to administer a test to every student enrolled in a tested grade/subject area. Because of these statutory and rule requirements, there is no “opt-out” option offered through the OSDE. In addition, 70 O.S. § 5-117 states that local school boards of education do not have the authority to take actions inconsistent with state law or rules that have been adopted by the State Board of Education. - https://sde.ok.gov/sites/ok.gov.sde/files/Opt_out_response%20letter_08032015.pdf |
| Oregon | Executive Numbered Memo 003-2015-16—Exemption from Statewide Summative Tests established a new policy for exempting students from grade-level Smarter Balanced assessments and alternate Oregon Extended Assessments in English language arts and mathematics in accordance with House Bill 2655. • Are there eligibility requirements? No. Parents do not need to specify a reason when submitting the opt-out form. • What is the process for a parent to make this request? School districts are required to send out the combined ODE-provided opt-out form and 30-day notice at least 30 days before testing begins. Parents wishing to opt out must sign and return form to their child’s school. Opt-out forms are only valid for the current school year. - https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/assessment/Documents/asmt_exemption_faq.pdf Opt-out form - https://www.oregon.gov/ode/educator-resources/assessment/Documents/Opt-Out_Form_English.pdf |
| Pennsylvania | Student’s parent/guardian chose to exclude the student from participation based on reason(s) other than conflict with religious beliefs, even though there is no provision for this exclusion in Pennsylvania regulation: Even though PDE does not recognize parental refusal as an allowable exclusion, if a parent refuses to have a child participate in the assessment and does not provide a reason in accordance with Chapter 4 rules, school personnel should select “Student’s parent/guardian chose to exclude the student from participation based on reason(s) other than conflict with religious beliefs, even though there is no provision for this exclusion in Pennsylvania regulation.” LEAs should check with their solicitor to determine if they will accept refusals, and if they do, determine the procedures to be followed. Students who do not participate in the assessment due to parental refusal will negatively affect the school’s participation rate and can potentially have a negative impact on the school’s accountability status. - https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-12/Assessment%20and%20Accountability/PSSA/PSSA%20Handbook%20for%20Assessment%20Coordinators.pdf |
| Rhode Island | Students who do not test due to parent refusal will be considered non-participants for accountability purposes. LEAs may have policies regarding handling parent refusals; however, RIDE expects all students in tested grades to participate in the state assessments for their current grade level either with or without accommodations. Any student without an approved medical exemption will be considered a non-participant for accountability purposes. NOTE: Many of the online test platforms have options for schools and LEAs to indicate why a student didn’t participate in the test. RIDE does not consider these valid or approved exemptions for testing. LEAs must follow the procedures for ensuring First-Year EL students and medical exemption requests are done correctly to ensure they approved by RIDE. See sections above and the Medical Exemption section of this handbook for more information. - https://ride.ri.gov/sites/g/files/xkgbur806/files/2023-10/Test%20Coordinator%20Handbook%202023-24.pdf |
| South Carolina | |
| South Dakota | |
| Tennessee | State and federal law requires student participation in state assessments. These statutes specifically reference the expectation that all students enrolled in public schools in Tennessee will complete annual assessments. Therefore, school districts are not authorized to adopt policies allowing these actions. No, state and federal law requires student participation in state assessments. In fact, these statutes specifically reference the expectation that all students enrolled in public schools in Tennessee will complete annual assessments. Given both the importance and legal obligation, parents may not refuse or opt a child out of participating in state assessments. Therefore, school districts are not authorized to adopt policies allowing these actions. With the exception of students impacted by COVID-19 as described below, school districts must address student absences on testing days in the same manner as they would address a student’s failure to participate in any other mandatory activity at school (e.g., final exams) by applying the district’s or school’s attendance policies. - https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/testing/October%202020%20Assessment%20Opt%20Out%20Memo.pdf |
| Texas | All students enrolled in Texas public schools and open-enrollment charter schools in grades 3–8 and specific high school courses are required by both federal and state law to participate in STAAR. - https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/testing/staar/staar-resources Federal and state laws require that all students participate in a summative assessment, STAAR. Although state law provides families with the right to temporarily remove their child from a class or school activity if they have an objection to participation, it specifically does not allow families to do so to avoid a test/assessment. - https://tea.texas.gov/student-assessment/staar-2023-parent-one-pager-english.pdf |
| Utah | Parent exclusion form - https://schools.utah.gov/File/d7ce21bb-6746-49c8-8d11-381d13af4e74 In accordance with State law, Utah factors the requirement for 95 percent student participation in statewide assessments into the accountability system by publishing the school’s participation rate on a school’s report card (UCA section 53E-5-211). The participation rate calculated for reporting purposes will include students who do not participate in an assessment due to parent opt-out provisions prescribed in State law (UCA section 53G-6-803). Utah law authorizes a parent to excuse a student from taking a statewide assessment (U.C.A. § 53G-6-803). Compliance with this provision of State law makes it impossible for the USBE to ensure compliance with the 95 percent requirement. (State Plan, p. 46) |
| Vermont | Parent requests for opt-out or refusal are addressed by local school officials. Use of the state medical exemption process for this purpose will be rejected. Federal law does not require or forbid a parental right to opt out (ESSA, 2016). The State of Vermont is committed to administering these assessments to further equity-focused work. Therefore, the State does not have an opt-out provision and the Agency of Education does not support opt-out. Learn more. - https://datacollection.education.vermont.gov/Assessments/Statewide-Summative-Assessments-in-ELA%2C-Math-and-Science/Participation/ This proposal reinforces expectations established in Vermont policy (the Education Quality Standards) and state law requiring that students are assessed annually. - State Plan, p. 72 |
| Virginia | The Virginia regulations do not provide for what is sometimes referred to as an “opt out policy” for students regarding the Virginia assessments. If parents refuse to have their student participate in one or more of the required Virginia assessments, they should be aware that their student’s state assessment score report will reflect a score of “0” for any test that is refused. - https://www.doe.virginia.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/32441/638047209140483495 |
| Washington | Test refusals affect students, schools, and districts in different ways: • Students in grades 3-8: Test results help families know if their student’s learning is on track, or if extra help is needed. Some school districts use state test results to determine a student’s eligibility for special programs, like accelerated learning opportunities. Please contact your local district for more information. • Students in high school: All students, regardless of which graduation pathway they intend to complete, are expected to take the appropriate Smarter Balanced Assessments in ELA and math during 10th grade, and to incorporate their results into their High School and Beyond Plan. • Schools and districts: Test refusals penalize schools and districts. Students who do not test are counted among the number of students who do not meet standard. This is reflected in the Accountability Index. Schools and districts that fall below a 95 percent participation rate on state tests jeopardize eligibility for any state or federal awards or recognitions. -https://ospi.k12.wa.us/student-success/testing/state-testing/state-testing-frequently-asked-questions (1) By the end of the 2008-09 school year, school districts shall have in place in elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools assessments or other strategies chosen by the district to assure that students have an opportunity to learn the essential academic learning requirements in social studies, the arts, and health and fitness. Social studies includes history, geography, civics, economics, and social studies skills. Health and fitness includes, but is not limited to, mental health and suicide prevention education. Beginning with the 2008-09 school year, school districts shall annually submit an implementation verification report to the office of the superintendent of public instruction. The office of the superintendent of public instruction may not require school districts to use a classroom-based assessment in social studies, the arts, and health and fitness to meet the requirements of this section and shall clearly communicate to districts their option to use other strategies chosen by the district. (2) Beginning with the 2008-09 school year, school districts shall require students in the seventh or eighth grade, and the eleventh or twelfth grade to each complete at least one classroom-based assessment in civics. Beginning with the 2010-11 school year, school districts shall require students in the fourth or fifth grade to complete at least one classroom-based assessment in civics. The civics assessment may be selected from a list of classroom-based assessments approved by the office of the superintendent of public instruction. Beginning with the 2008-09 school year, school districts shall annually submit implementation verification reports to the office of the superintendent of public instruction documenting the use of the classroom-based assessments in civics. (3) Verification reports shall require school districts to report only the information necessary to comply with this section. - https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=28A.230.095 |
| West Virginia | A parent or legal guardian may refuse the standardized assessment by submitting such refusal to the school in which the child is enrolled in writing at any time during the school year. Where the refusal is not specific as to what standardized assessment it is intended to apply, it shall apply to any and all standardized testing unless and until said refusal is withdrawn by the parent or legal guardian in writing. - https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Text_HTML/2016_SESSIONS/RS/bills/hb4384%20intr.pdf |
| Wisconsin | When a parent or guardian requests that the student be excused from participating in the WSAS, this request must be honored at grades 4, 8, 9-11, per Wis. Stats. 118.30(2)(b)3. This request may come at any time during the testing window. All students excused by parent opt-out are marked as “not tested” students in school and district reporting determinations. NOTE: Testing is something in life everyone must do in some form or another, whether it be a college exam, CPR training, or a professional certification exam. The child’s attitude and the attitude of those around the child will determine a great deal about how they may perform on the test that day. Encouraging a child to do their best to show their knowledge and skill will aid them in doing well and forming good testing habits as they grow into adults. - https://dpi.wi.gov/assessment/faq |
| Wyoming | Opting-out of state tests required by law is not allowed. In the Spring of 2014, WDE requested an opinion from the Wyoming Attorney General’s Office regarding parent opt-outs from state-mandated testing (i.e., WY-ALT, WY-TOPP). The following is part of the Attorney General’s response: “In summary, the State Board of Education is authorized to establish the statewide accountability system pursuant to state law, including the Wyoming Accountability in Education Act. It has promulgated rules that require districts to administer the relevant assessments to all students in the appropriate grade levels. These requirements are within the authority granted to the board by the legislature. Consequently, districts may not allow students or their parents to opt them out of the assessments provided by law. - https://wyoassessment.org/resources/faqs/frequently-asked-questions-about-general-information |
Table C-2. Components of State Opt-out Policies
| State | Addressed, Allowed | Addressed, Not Allowed (with Exceptions) |
Addressed, Not Allowed |
Addressed, No State Policy |
Handled at District Level |
Parents Informed of Rights |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL | X | |||||
| AK | X | |||||
| AZ | X | |||||
| AR | X | |||||
| CA | X | |||||
| CO | X | X | X | |||
| CT | ||||||
| DE | ||||||
| DC | X | |||||
| FL | ||||||
| GA | ||||||
| HI | X | |||||
| ID | X | |||||
| IL | X | |||||
| IN | X | |||||
| IA | X | |||||
| KS | ||||||
| KY | X | |||||
| LA | ||||||
| ME | X | X | X | |||
| MD | X | |||||
| MA | X | |||||
| MI | X | |||||
| MN | X | |||||
| MS | X | |||||
| MO | ||||||
| MT | X | X | ||||
| NE | ||||||
| NV | ||||||
| NH | X | |||||
| NJ | ||||||
| NM | X | |||||
| NY | X | |||||
| NC | X | |||||
| ND | X | |||||
| OH | X | |||||
| OK | X | |||||
| OR | X | |||||
| PA | X | |||||
| RI | X | X | ||||
| SC | ||||||
| SD | ||||||
| TN | X | |||||
| TX | X | |||||
| UT | X | |||||
| VT | X | X | ||||
| VA | X | |||||
| WA | X | |||||
| WV | X | |||||
| WI | X | |||||
| WY | X | |||||
| Total | 11 | 2 | 13 | 13 | 5 | 2 |