States’ Participation Guidelines for
Alternate Assessments Based on Modified
Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)
in 2009
Synthesis Report 75
Sheryl S. Lazarus •
Jennifer Hodgson • Martha L. Thurlow
March 2010
All rights reserved.
Any or all portions of this document may
be reproduced and distributed without
prior permission, provided the source is
cited as:
Lazarus, S.S., Hodgson,
J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2010). States’
participation guidelines for alternate
assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2009
(Synthesis Report 75). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
All students, including students with disabilities, must be included in state
accountability systems as required by law. In April 2007, federal regulations
provided states the flexibility to offer another assessment option—an Alternate
Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) for some students
with disabilities. The AA-MAS is an optional assessment.
The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has annually compiled,
analyzed, and summarized states’ participation guidelines for the AA-MAS since
2007. The purpose of this report is to update information in previous reports.
As of October 2009, 14 states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas) had publicly available participation guidelines
for an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS. As of November 2009 only one
state—Texas—had successfully completed the U.S. Department of Education’s peer
review process that determines whether the assessment fulfills the necessary
requirements for the state to receive federal funds.
Results from this study suggest that states are continuing to develop or update
their participation guidelines. A majority of states included flowcharts,
decision trees, or checklists in addition to text-based description of
guidelines. Over half of the states in the current study required that parent
notification and implications for graduation be considered as part of the
decision-making process.
The participation guidelines differed across states, but all states required
that the student must have a current IEP. Additionally over two-thirds of states
included the following criteria: consideration of previous performance on
multiple measures, learning grade-level content, and not progressing at rate
expected to reach grade level proficiency within school year covered by IEP.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Overview
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA)
require that all students, including students with disabilities,
participate in state assessments used for accountability. Most
students with disabilities participate in the regular assessment
with or without accommodations. A few students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities may be eligible for an
Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards
(AA-AAS). In April 2007, new federal regulations gave states
flexibility to offer another option: Alternate Assessments based
on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS). States may
count up to two percent of students proficient based on the
results of the AA-MAS. States are not required to offer this
assessment option.
The regulations indicate that the
AA-MAS is for students with an
Individualized Educational Program
(IEP). Additionally, IEP teams must
gather valid data from multiple sources
(e.g., previous state assessments,
classroom assessments, etc.)
demonstrating that the student will not
achieve grade-level proficiency in the
particular content area due to
disability. It must also be demonstrated
that, even if the student is provided
with intensive instruction in the
content area, he or she is unlikely to
achieve grade level proficiency within
the year covered by the IEP. The student
must also have a standards-based IEP and
the student must have access to
grade-level content standards (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007).
States must develop a set of
criteria for determining which students
are eligible to participate in different
assessment options. This report refers
to these criteria as participation
guidelines. IEP teams use participation
guidelines to determine whether the
student will participate in the AA-AAS,
AA-MAS, or in the regular assessment
with or without accommodations (U.S.
Department of Education, 2007).
Although some states have an
assessment they consider to be an
AA-MAS, as of November 2009, only one
state—Texas—had successfully completed
the U.S. Department of Education peer
review process that determines whether
the assessment fulfills the necessary
requirements.
This is the third time that NCEO has
tracked states’ participation guidelines
for the AA-MAS. Each time that NCEO has
analyzed the guidelines (Lazarus,
Thurlow, Christensen, & Cormier, 2007;
Lazarus, Rogers, Cormier, & Thurlow,
2008) there have been numerous changes.
Please refer to the NCEO Web site at
www.nceo.info, for more information and
relevant research about the AA-MAS.
Need to Update and Analyze
The most recent NCEO report tracking
states’ participation guidelines
(Lazarus et al., 2008) identified states
that had what they considered to be an
AA-MAS, and provided each states’
participation guidelines. In 2008,
federal legislation offering states the
option to develop an AA-MAS had only
been finalized for one year. Therefore
only a small group of states had
publicly available participation
guidelines for an AA-MAS. In 2009, we
hypothesized that there would be more
states who had either developed or were
in the process of developing an AA-MAS,
and that had publicly available
participation guidelines.
Similar to Lazarus et al. (2008),
the specific questions that we sought to
answer in this study were:
1. As of October 2009, which states
had publicly available guidelines for
students with disabilities to
participate in an AA-MAS?
2. What were the characteristics of
these guidelines?
Process Used to Find Information
about States’ AA-MAS
Procedures used in the current study
were similar to those in Lazarus et al.
(2008). Information concerning states’
participation guidelines for an AA-MAS
was gathered from state Web sites in
September and October of 2009. NCEO
compiled and analyzed the data. Data for
each state were entered into a State
Profile. The profiles were
electronically sent to state department
of education contacts in assessment or
testing for verification. States were
asked to verify that we had found the
most current criteria. If a state
identified additional criteria, we
required evidence of a written document
before accepting the change. No attempt
was made to determine whether
participation guidelines met the federal
requirements.
Figures summarizing the results of
this analysis are presented in the
Results section of this report.
Comparisons are also made between
findings in the current update and the
2008 report (Lazarus et al. 2008). More
complete information can be found in
tables presented in Appendix A. The
titles and locations of all state
documents referenced in the report can
be found in Appendix B. Appendix C
contains a compilation of states’ 2009
participation guidelines.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Results
As of October 2009, 14 states—Arizona,
California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, and Texas—had publicly available
participation guidelines for an assessment
the state considered to be an AA-MAS. The
previous year’s report (Lazarus et al.,
2008) found that only nine
states—California, Connecticut, Kansas,
Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas—had publicly
available participation guidelines for
AA-MAS. Several states included in the
previous report have since revised their
participation guidelines for 2009.
Format
The participation guidelines of all 14
states included text-based description of
the guidelines. The guidelines of seven
states also included a flow chart or
decision tree, and six states included a
checklist in addition to text (see Figure
1). One state (Michigan) included case
studies as part of its guidelines. The case
studies identified grade level, special
education status, skill level, previous
performance on state assessments, and other
relevant information pertaining to example
students. Following the case studies, an
answer key was provided to indicate the most
appropriate assessment option for the
student in the case study.
Some states posted three or more documents
containing participation guidelines.
Tennessee’s guidelines, for example, were
spread across five documents. These included
one flow chart, one state memorandum, two
documents containing text-based description
of guidelines, and one document entitled
“Parent and School Initial Guidance.” Tables
A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A provide further
information on participation guidelines
formats.
Figure 1. Format of Participation
Guidelines Documents for AA-MAS
Changes Since 2008
Lazarus et al. (2008) reported that all
states used text-based description of
criteria in their participation guidelines,
similar to current findings. Seven states of
the fourteen states (50%) in 2009 had flow
charts or decision trees as compared to four
of the nine states (44%) in 2008. Similarly,
the number of states using checklists
increased to six states in 2009 from three
in 2008. No states used case studies prior
to 2009.
Combination
Participation
All except two states allowed combination
participation (i.e., students taking
different assessments across content areas).
For example, a student may take the regular
assessment in English-Language Arts, and the
AA-MAS in mathematics and science. Nine of
the fourteen states allowed combination
participation across content areas for the
regular assessment and AA-MAS, but did not
allow participation across all three
assessment types (e.g., regular, AA-MAS, and
AA-AAS). For example, California’s
guidelines stated:
The student shall not be allowed to take
both the CAPA [California Alternate
Performance Assessment] and CMA [California
Modified Assessment]. Students shall take
either: CAPA in all subject areas, CST
[California Standards Test] in all subject
areas, or a combination of CST and CMA in
the subject areas being assessed.
Figure 2. Combination Participation
In comparison, three states allowed
combination participation across the regular
assessment, AA-MAS, and AA-AAS. While North
Dakota was among the states that allowed
participation across all three types, the
guidelines acknowledged that, “It is
unlikely that students with significant
cognitive disabilities will participate in
NDAA2 [North Dakota’s AA-MAS] but there may
be a rare circumstance where the IEP team
deems it appropriate.” Of these three
states, Michigan was unique in that it had
three AA-AAS assessments (e.g., Supported
Independence, Participation, Functional
Independence). Michigan allowed students to
combine participation across the regular
test, the AA-MAS, and the AA-AAS; however,
if the IEP team determines that a student
should participate in the “Supported
Independence” or “Participation” version of
Michigan’s AA-AAS then the student must take
it across all content areas.
Finally, one state (Ohio) allowed
combination participation without further
specification as to which assessments may be
combined. Table A-3 in Appendix A provides
additional information on combination
participation.
Changes Since 2008
There were more states in 2009 that only
allowed combination participation across the
AA-MAS and regular assessment than in 2008:
nine of fourteen states in 2009 (64%) as
compared to three of nine states in 2008
(33%). The number of states allowing
participation across the regular assessment,
AA-MAS, and AA-AAS, on the other hand, has
only increased by one state since 2008.
States allowing combination participation
without further specification have decreased
in number since 2008: three in 2008 as
compared to one in 2009.
Parent Notification and
Graduation Considerations
The participation guidelines of nine states
required parent notification prior to
student participation in the AA-MAS (see
Figure 3). The states acknowledged that, as
part of the IEP team, parents must be
informed of their child’s participation.
Figure 3. Parent Notification and
Graduation Considerations
The guidelines of eight states required
implications for graduation to be considered
prior to participation. Most of these
guidelines further stipulated that
participation in an AA-MAS would not
preclude students from attempting to
complete requirements for a regular high
school diploma.
The guidelines differed across states. For
example, Arizona, provided space for the IEP
team to reflect on “potential consequences.”
The guidelines posed the question, “Are
there any effects of state or local policies
that would preclude completion requirements
for a regular high school diploma for the
child participating in either test?”
Following the question, there was a check
box for “yes” or “no” and blank space under
“explain.” Michigan included the statement,
“A divergent path at a young age may have
consequences later and may prevent the
student from progressing on Michigan’s GLCEs
as needed to meet the requirements of the
Michigan Merit Curriculum and earn a general
high school diploma.” Louisiana required
parents or guardians to initial that they
understood the following statements:
- Testing in LAA 2
means my child is
performing below grade
level. If my child
continues to perform
below grade level, it is
highly unlikely that he
or she will earn a
standard high school
diploma. I am aware that
in order for my child to
receive a standard high
school diploma, my child
must participate in and
pass the required
components of the
Graduation Exit
Examination (GEE) and
earn the necessary 23
Carnegie units.
- The decision for LAA
2 is an IEP team
decision based on the
needs of the student.
- If my child
participates in LAA 2,
he or she will be
eligible to receive a
Certificate of
Achievement. My child
may earn Carnegie Units
when appropriate.
- My child is eligible
to participate in the
Pre-GED/Skills Option
Program based on
participation
guidelines.
Table A-4 in Appendix A provides additional
information on parent notification and
graduation considerations.
Changes Since 2008
About the same percentage of states required
parent notification prior to participation
in the AA-MAS in 2008 and 2009—that is, six
of the nine states (67%) required
notification in 2008 and nine of the 14
states (64%) required notification in 2009.
A greater percentage of states required
consideration of graduate implications in
2008 than in 2009. While four of nine states
(44%) required consideration of graduation
implications in 2008, eight of 14 states
(57%) required implications to be considered
in 2009.
Participation
Criteria
States had different criteria that were used
to make participation decisions. While
certain participation criteria were common
across all states, other criteria were
mentioned in only a few guidelines (see
Figure 4).
Figure 4. AA-MAS Participation
Criteria
Has IEP. All 14
states required that students have a current
IEP to participate in the AA-MAS. In other
words, students must be eligible for and
receiving special education services prior
to participation. On Connecticut’s
checklist, for example, the first question
asks, “Does the student receive special
education services with an active IEP?”
Learning Grade Level Content.
The guidelines of 11 states required that
eligible students must have access to grade
level instruction. For example, North
Dakota’s guidelines specify that although
students receive services for special
education, they must still participate in
the general education curriculum.
Previous Performance on Multiple
Measures. A majority of states
in the current report (n = 12 states)
required that the student’s performance on
multiple assessments be taken into
consideration. Often, previous performance
on state assessments was considered along
with performance on classroom tests or
formative assessments. Arizona’s guidelines,
for example, included the following:
Based on all predictive data, the IEP team
has determined that this student most likely
will not be able to demonstrate proficiency
of the grade level Academic Content
Standards through further administration of
AIMS, but may be able to with enhanced
accessibility. Use a minimum of two
additional data sources listed and attach:
district assessments or other comparable
measurement; performance on other
assessments that can validly document
academic achievement (DIBELS, Reading
First); Response to Intervention
documentation; measurable progress on
academic standards IEP goals.
Cannot Demonstrate Knowledge on
Regular Assessment even with Provision of
Accommodations. More than half
of the states in the current study (n = 8
states) reported that students must be
unable to demonstrate knowledge on the
regular assessment even when provided with
accommodations. For example, Maryland’s
guidelines said, “The student must
demonstrate that he/she cannot attain
proficiency on the actual grade level MSA
[Maryland’s regular assessment], even with
the provision of accommodations based on
documented multiple valid and objective
measures of student’s progress (or lack of
progress).”
Not Based on Disability Category
Label. The guidelines of eight
states indicated that eligibility for the
AA-MAS must not be dependent on disability
category label. For example, Louisiana’s
guidelines said, “The decision to test the
student in LAA2 [Louisiana’s modified
assessment] is not based on disability
category label.”
Not Progressing at Rate Expected
to Reach Grade Level Proficiency Within
School Year Covered by IEP. A
majority of states in the current report (n
= 11 states) specified that even with the
provision of special education supports and
services, the student must not be likely to
achieve grade level proficiency within the
year covered by his or her IEP. For example,
Michigan’s guidelines said:
In determining if the MEAP-Access
[Michigan’s AA-MAS] is appropriate, the IEP
team needs to determine if the student’s
progress to date in response to appropriate
instruction, including special education and
related services designed to address the
student’s individual needs, is such that,
even if significant growth occurs, the IEP
team is reasonably certain that the student
will not achieve grade-level proficiency
within the year covered by the student’s
IEP.
IEP Includes Goals Based on
Grade-Level Content Standards.
More than half of the states in the current
report (n = 9) required that the student’s
IEP goals must be based on grade-level
content standards. For example, Ohio’s
guidelines said, “Students must have IEPs
based on grade level academic content
standards in the content areas being
assessed by AA-MAS.”
Receives Accommodations During
Classroom Instruction. Less
than half of the states in the current study
(n = 6) included student’s use of classroom
accommodations in their participation
guidelines. For example, the Oklahoma
guidelines said, “Students with disabilities
are required to be provided with
accommodations and modifications to ensure
progress toward meeting his/her IEP goals
and short-term objectives and/or benchmarks
related to the general education
curriculum.” Other states provided examples
of appropriate accommodations used across
instructional and assessment settings. For
example, “fewer and shorter reading
passages,” “shorter or less difficult
questions,” and “test items with fewer
answer choices,” were specified in
Maryland’s participation guidelines.
Receives
Specialized/Individualized Instruction.
Seven states indicated that
eligible students must receive specialized
or individualized classroom instruction. Of
these states, Tennessee had a provision for
both, “intensive specially designed
instruction,” and “significant
individualized supports.” Tennessee provided
further explanation and examples under each
of these relative provisions (see Appendix C
for details).
Not Due to Excessive Absences,
Social, Cultural, Language, Economic, or
Environmental Factors. Half of
the states (n = 7) in the current study did
not allow students to be identified for the
AA-MAS based on one or more of the following
factors: excessive absences, social,
cultural, language, economic, or
environmental factors. All seven states
provided factors not affecting eligibility
that approximated, but were not identical
to, the above factors. For example, Indiana
specified “excessive or extensive absences,”
as well as, “social, cultural, or economic
difference,” but did not mention language or
environmental factors affecting eligibility
considerations. Connecticut’s guidelines
indicated that, “The student’s inability to
reach proficiency is not due to excessive
absences unrelated to his or her disability,
or to social, cultural, environmental, or
economic factors.”
Not Receiving Instruction based
on Extended or Alternate Standards or not
Eligible to Take AA-AAS. Seven
states stipulated that to meet eligibility
requirements for the AA-MAS, students must
not receive instruction based on extended or
alternate standards. For example, on Kansas’
eligibility flowchart, the first item asked,
“Is the student’s instruction and IEP goals
and objectives based primarily on the
extended standards, benchmarks, and
indicators?”
Previous Performance on State
Assessment. The participation
guidelines for six states indicated that
student’s performance on state assessments
should be considered. Further, many of these
states identified the level at which
students should test before they were
considered eligible for the AA-MAS. For
example, Louisiana’s guidelines said, “The
student scored at the Unsatisfactory level
in English language arts and/or mathematics
on the previous year’s LEAP/iLEAP/GEE or
participated in LAA 1 or LAA 2.”
Not Based on Placement Setting.
Six states indicated that
eligibility may not be determined based on
placement setting. For example, the Indiana
guidelines said that eligibility for the
AA-MAS cannot be based on, “a specific
special education placement or service.”
Does Not Have a Significant
Cognitive Disability. Several
states (n = 4) required that eligible
students may not have a significant
cognitive disability. For example, North
Carolina indicated that, “The student IS NOT
identified as having a significant cognitive
disability.” In Maryland’s checklist, there
was an item asking whether the student had a
significant cognitive disability. If the
answer to the item was “yes,” then the
student was not eligible for Maryland’s
AA-MAS.
Performance Multiple Years
Behind Grade Level Expectations.
Only three states in the current report
included the provision that students must be
multiple years behind grade-level
expectations to qualify for the AA-MAS.
States required that evidence from previous
assessments be taken into consideration
before this determination was made. For
example, Tennessee’s guidelines said,
“Student classroom achievement and
performance is significantly below grade
level peers.”
Changes since 2008
Several major changes have occurred since
the previous update in 2008 (Lazarus et al.,
2008). For example, the number of states
using previous performance on multiple
measures to determine eligibility has
increased from seven of nine states (78%) in
2008 to twelve of fourteen states (85%) in
2009. States were more likely in 2009 to use
a variety of measures and methods to
determine eligibility, rather than relying
solely on previous performance on the state
assessment.
The guidelines of approximately the same
percentage of states indicated that the
student must be learning grade level content
in both years—that is, seven of nine states
in 2008 (78%) and eleven in 2009 (79%). The
number of states requiring that IEP goals be
based on grade level standards has increased
from five in 2008 to nine in 2009. The
number of states including the criterion
that eligible students are “not progressing
at rate expected to reach grade level
proficiency within school year covered by
IEP” increased substantially from six in
2008 to eleven in 2009
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Discussion
Fourteen states had publicly
available participation guidelines for
an AA-MAS in October 2009. As of
November 2009, only one of these states
had successfully completed the U.S.
Department of Education’s peer review
process.
Key findings from NCEO’s analysis of
2009 AA-MAS participation guidelines
included:
- All 14 states had
text-based description
of participation
guidelines, and
approximately half of
the states had a
flowchart or checklist
in addition to the
written description. For
the first time, one
state’s guidelines
included case studies.
- Over half of the
states allowed
combination
participation across the
regular assessment and
AA-MAS; less than a
third, however, allowed
combination
participation across all
three assessments
(AA-AAS, AA-MAS, regular
assessment).
- The guidelines of
more than half of the
states required that
parents be notified, and
implications for
graduation be
considered, prior to
determining eligibility
for the AA-MAS.
- All states required
that eligible students
have a current IEP.
- Over two-thirds of
states included the
following participation
criteria: consideration
of the student’s
performance on multiple
measures, learning grade
level content, and not
progressing at rate
expected to reach
grade-level proficiency
within the school year
covered by IEP.
The terminology, phrases, and
participation criteria in more states’
participation guidelines appear to be
drawn from the federal regulations than
in the past. For example, 67% of the
states included “not progressing at rate
expected to reach grade level
proficiency within school year covered
by IEP” as a criterion in 2008; this
increased to 79% of the states in 2009.
IEP teams may find flowcharts and
checklists useful for additional clarity
and structure. In comparison to the
guidelines documented by Lazarus et al.
(2008), states were more likely in 2009
to use flowcharts and checklists, in
addition to text-based description,
within their participation guidelines.
The percentage of states using
flowcharts increased from 44% in 2008 to
50% in 2009; likewise, states using
checklists increased from 33% in 2008 to
43% in 2009.
This is the first year that any
states included case studies that were
designed to help IEP teams get a better
understanding of students who may
qualify for the AA-MAS. They might
provide useful information for IEP teams
in making participation decisions
because they may include examples of
determinations similar to those actually
encountered by IEP teams. Case studies
should be evaluated, however, to
determine whether they provide accurate
descriptions of students—or suggest
limitations on which students might
qualify for this assessment option that
are not supported by the participation
criteria.
This year more states included
detailed specifications about how
students may participate in different
assessments in different content areas
(combination participation). The
percentage of states allowing
combination participation without
specification has decreased from 33% in
2008 to 7% in 2009. In 2008, less than a
third of the states (30%) allowed
combination participation across only
the regular assessment and AA-MAS; in
2009 almost two-thirds of the states
(64%) allowed participation across only
the AA-MAS and regular assessment. In
both years about 20% of states allowed
combination participation across all
three assessments (regular, AA-AAS, and
AA-MAS).
We would encourage states that
scattered their participation guidelines
across multiple documents to consider
whether IEP teams will easily find all
documents containing relevant
participation guideline information. For
example, one state in the current report
posted five separate documents for use
in determining eligibility, none of
which contained all of the state’s
criteria. Also, during our verification
process another state identified an
additional document that contained some
additional participation guidelines that
were not posted on the state’s Web site.
The key findings listed above contain
some, but not all, of the information
gained from the current study. Through
engaging in the process of verification
with states, we gained a better
understanding of the decisions states
are making about the AA-MAS. We
originally identified 15 states with
AA-MAS participation guidelines in
October 2009. As a result of the
verification process, we found that one
of these states had since suspended
development of its AA-MAS. Thus this
state was not included in this analysis.
Also, as part of the verification
process, when we did not find AA-MAS
participation guidelines on a state’s
Web site, we contacted the state to see
whether we had missed something on the
Web site. Several of these states
responded that it was not yet possible
to develop an AA-MAS due to budgetary
constraints. Many of these states
reported that maintaining current
assessments (i.e., regular assessment
and AA-AAS) was challenging enough
considering current economic conditions.
It appears that financial difficulties
pose the greatest major challenge for
states considering an AA-MAS.
The current study did not attempt to
determine the extent to which state
policies complied with federal
requirements under ESEA or IDEA. Those
determinations would need to be made by
the appropriate federal authorities.
Although only one state (Texas) had
successfully completed the peer review
process as of November 2009, it is
likely that more states will follow in
the near future. In addition, states
that have not yet completed the peer
review process will continue to revise
their guidelines in response to peer
review.
It is expected that both the number
of states developing an AA-MAS and the
characteristics of AA-MAS participation
guidelines will change as states
determine how best to proceed with the
two percent flexibility. NCEO will track
these changes as they develop.
Top of pagea> |
Table of Contents
References
Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Christensen, L., & Cormier,
D. (2007). States’ alternate assessments based on modified
achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2007 (Synthesis Report
67). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Lazarus, S. S., Rogers, C., Cormier,
D., & Thurlow, M. L. (2008). States’
participation guidelines for alternate
assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2008
(Synthesis Report 71). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
U.S. Department of Education (2007,
April 9). Final Rule 34 CFR Parts
200 and 300: Title I-Improving the
academic achievement of the
disadvantaged; Individuals with
disabilities education act (IDEA).
Federal Register: 72(67), Washington DC:
Author. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/2percentR-Eg/FederalRegApril9TwoPercent.pdf
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Appendix A:
Participation Guidelines Characteristics
by State
Table A-1. Format of
Participation Guidelines for AA-MAS,
September 2009
|
State
|
Criteria
|
|
Description
of
criteria
(e.g.,
text-based
elaboration/description)
|
Flow
chart/decision
tree
|
Check
list
|
Case
studies
|
|
Arizona
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
California*
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
Connecticut
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
Indiana
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
Louisiana
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
|
Maryland
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
|
Michigan
|
X
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
North
Carolina*
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
North
Dakota
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
Ohio
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
Tennessee
|
X
|
X
|
|
|
|
Texas
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
No. of
States
|
14
|
7
|
6
|
1
|
*See Table A-2 for
additional information.
Table A-2. Descriptions
of Participation Guidelines Format
|
State1
|
Additional
Information
|
|
California
|
Separate
participation
guidelines
for
science.
|
|
North
Carolina
|
In
addition
to core
subject
areas,
North
Carolina
also has
an
NCEXTEND2
Alternate
Assessment
for
Occupational
Course
of Study
(NC
EXTEND2
OCS). It
is
available
for the
following
courses:
Occupational
English
I;
Occupational
Mathematics
I; and
Life
Skills
Science
I and
II.
Grade 10
students
following
the
Occupational
Course
of Study
also
participate
in the
NCEXTEND2
writing
assessment.
|
1Only
California and North Carolina required
additional information.
Table A-3. Combination
Participation
|
State
|
Combination
Participation
Allowed
(No
Specification)
|
Regular
Assessment
+ AA-MAS
+ AA-AAS
|
Regular
Assessment
+ AA-MAS
only
|
Specifications
and
Descriptions
|
|
Arizona
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
California
|
|
|
X
|
The
student
shall
not be
allowed
to take
both the
CAPA
[California
Alternate
Performance
Assessment]
and CMA
[California
Modified
Assessment].
Students
shall
take
either:
CAPA in
all
subject
areas,
CST
[California
Standards
Test] in
all
subject
areas,
CMA in
all
subject
areas,
or a
combination
of CST
and CMA
in the
subject
areas
being
assessed.
|
|
Connecticut
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Indiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kansas
|
|
X
|
|
Eligibility
must be
determined
for each
content
area
separately.
|
|
Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Michigan1
|
|
X
|
X
|
Regular
Assessment
+ AA-MAS
+
AA-AAS:
Prior to
implementation
of
MEAP-Access,
the IEP
team
could
determine
that a
student
would
take the
MEAP for
one or
more
content
areas
and
MI-Access
Functional
Independence
(FI) for
the
remaining
content
area(s).
For
example,
a
student
could
take
MEAP
mathematics
and FI
in
English
Language
Arts
(ELA).
With the
addition
of
MEAP-Access,
the IEP
team has
the
flexibility
to have
a
student
participate
in MEAP,
MEAP-Access,
or FI.
Regular
Assessment
+ AA-MAS
only:
As
in the
past, if
an IEP
team
determines
that a
student
will
participate
in
MI-Access
Supported
Independence
or
Participation,
he or
she must
take the
same
assessment
for all
content
areas
(e.g.,
Supported
Independence
ELA and
Mathematics
or
Participation
ELA and
Mathematics).
|
|
North
Carolina
|
|
|
X
|
The IEP
team may
determine
that a
student
is to be
assessed
with
modified
academic
achievement
standards
(NCEXTEND2)
in one
or more
subjects
for
which
the
assessments
are
administered;
if the
IEP team
determines,
based on
participation
guidelines
below,
that the
NCEXTEND1
is the
most
appropriate
assessment
for a
student,
then
that
student
must be
assessed
with the
NCEXTEND1
in all
subjects
assessed
at that
grade
level.
|
|
North
Dakota
|
|
X
|
|
Any
combination
of the
above
[ND
State
Assessment
with no
accommodations;
ND State
Assessment
with
assessment
accommodations
documented
in the
student’s
IEP,
LEP, or
504
Plan; ND
Alternate
Assessment
1 for
students
with
severe
cognitive
disabilities
served
under
IDEA; ND
Alternate
Assessment
2 for
students
with
persistent
learning
difficulties
served
under
IDEA; or
a
combination
of the
above in
different
content
areas].
It is
unlikely
that
students
with
significant
cognitive
disabilities
will
participate
in
NDAA2,
but
there
may be a
rare
circumstance
where
the IEP
team
deems it
appropriate.
|
|
Ohio
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
Oklahoma
|
|
|
X
|
The
student
qualifies
for the
OAAP
Portfolio
in all
subjects
assessed.
|
|
Tennessee
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Texas
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
Total
|
1
|
3
|
9
|
|
1
Michigan
allows combination participation across
the regular assessment, AA-MAS, and
AA-AAS as well as across the regular
assessment and AA-MAS only. Whether
participation is combined across all
three assessment types, or only two,
depends on the type of AA-AAS
considered. Michigan differentiates
between three types of AA-AAS
(Functional Independence, Supported
Independence, and Participation).
Students eligible for Functional
Independence may combine participation
across all three assessment types. If
the student qualifies for Supported
Independence or Participation they must
participate in the specified AA-AAS
only.
Table A-4. Parent
Notification and Graduation
Considerations Information Included in
Participation Guidelines
|
State
|
Parent
Notification
Required
|
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered
|
Specification/Description
|
|
Arizona
|
X
|
X
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
Parents
must be
notified
that the
student’s
AIMS
assessment
will be
based on
Alternate
Achievement
Standards
or on
Modified
Academic
Achievement
Standards.
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
Are
there
any
effects
of state
or local
policies
that
would
preclude
completion
requirements
for a
regular
high
school
diploma
for the
child
participating
in
either
test?
(Yes/No).
|
|
California
|
X
|
X
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
Parents
are
informed
that
their
child’s
achievement
will be
measured
based on
modified
achievement
standards.
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
Not
precluded
from
attempting
to
complete
requirements,
as
defined
by the
State,
for a
regular
high
school
diploma.
|
|
Connecticut
|
X
|
X
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
Since
parents
are part
of the
IEP
team,
they
must be
part of
the
decision
making
process.
Additionally,
they
must be
fully
informed
that
their
child’s
progress
will be
measured
based on
modified
academic
achievement
standards.
This is
met
through
documentation
of prior
written
notice,
as well
as the
IEP page
that
addresses
statewide
assessments.
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
Students
who take
the
CMT/CAPT
(MAS)
are not
precluded
from
attempting
to
complete
the
requirements
for a
regular
high
school
diploma.
|
|
Indiana
|
|
X
|
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
The
committee
must be
informed
that the
decision
to
participate
in an
alternate
assessment
does not
preclude
a
student
from
attempting
to
complete
the
graduation
requirements.
However,
demonstrating
proficiency
on the
modified
assessment
alone is
insufficient
evidence
for
graduation;
the
student
is
expected
to earn
a high
school
diploma
prior to
exiting
high
school,
either
by
eventually
demonstrating
proficiency
on the
Graduation
Examination
or
through
the
appeals
process.
|
|
Kansas
|
|
|
|
|
Louisiana
|
X
|
X
|
Parent
Notification
Required
and
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
If my
child is
eligible
for and
participates
in LEAP
Alternate
Assessment,
Level 2,
my
initials
indicate
I
understand
the
statements
below.
- Testing in LAA 2 means my child is performing below grade level. If my child continues to perform below grade level, it is highly unlikely that he or she will earn a standard high school diploma. I am aware that in order for my child to receive a standard high school diploma, my child must participate in and pass the required components of the Graduation Exit Examination (GEE) and earn the necessary 23 Carnegie units.
- The decision for LAA 2 is an IEP team decision based on the needs of the student.
- If my child participates in LAA 2, he or she will be eligible to receive a Certificate of Achievement. My child may earn Carnegie Units when appropriate.
- My child is eligible to participate in the Pre-GED/Skills Option Program based on participation guidelines.
|
|
Maryland
|
X
|
X
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
If
the
parent
does not
attend
the
meeting
and sign
the
form,
there
should
be
documentation
of
parent
notification
and
informed
consent
for
meeting
along
with
documentation
of
notification
of the
decisions
of the
IEP
team.
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
Students
pursuing
the Mod
MSA/Mod
HSA are
not
precluded
from
completing
the
requirements
for the
regular
high
school
diploma.
|
|
Michigan
|
|
X
|
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
Students
who
participate
in
MEAP-Access
should
not be
precluded
from
attempting
to
complete
the
requirements
for a
regular
high
school
diploma;
a
divergent
path at
a young
age may
have
consequences
later
and may
prevent
the
student
from
progressing
on
Michigan’s
GLCEs as
needed
to meet
the
requirements
of the
Michigan
Merit
Curriculum
and earn
a
general
high
school
diploma.
|
|
North
Carolina
|
X
|
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
Parents
of these
students,
as part
of the
IEP Team
and as
participants
in the
IEP
process,
are to
be
informed
that
their
child’s
achievement
will be
measured
(specific
subjects)
based on
modified
academic
achievement
standards.
|
|
North
Dakota
|
X
|
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
It
is very
important
to keep
parents
informed.
The
Students
with
Disabilities
and the
North
Dakota
State
Assessments
parent
brochure
should
be
handed
out to
parents
and
educators
at every
student’s
annual
IEP
meeting;
the IEP
team
decides
[how a
student
with
disabilities
is
involved
in state
assessments];
discussion
about
state
assessments
must
take
place
with the
parent(s)
present.
|
|
Ohio
|
X
|
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
IEP
teams
including
parents
shall
consider
general
education
assessment
participation,
with or
without
accommodations
for
students,
before
considering
participation
in the
AA-MAS.
|
|
Oklahoma
|
|
|
|
|
Tennessee
|
X
|
X
|
Parent
Notification
Required:
Participation
in the
TCAP-MAAS
must be
an IEP
team
decision.
Since
parents
are part
of the
team,
they
must be
part of
the
decision
making
process.
Additionally,
they
must be
fully
informed
that
their
child’s
progress
will be
measured
based on
modified
academic
achievement
standards.
Implications
for
Graduation
Must be
Considered:
Students
who take
the
TCAP-MAAS
are not
precluded
from
attempting
to
complete
the
requirements
for a
regular
high
school
diploma.
|
|
Texas
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
9
|
8
|
|
Table A-5. AA-MAS
Participation Criteria
|
Criteria
|
A
r
i
z
o
n
a
|
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
|
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
c
u
t
|
I
n
d
i
a
n
a
|
K
a
n
s
a
s
|
L
o
u
i
s
i
a
n
a
|
M
a
r
y
l
a
n
d
|
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
|
N
o
r
t
h
C
a r
o
l
i
n
a
|
N
o
r
t
h
D
a k
o
t
a
|
O
h
i
o
|
O
k
l
a
h
o
m
a
|
T
e
n
n
e
s
s
e
e
|
T
e
x
a
s
|
No. of
States
|
|
Has IEP
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X*
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
X
|
14
|
|
Learning
grade-
level
content
|
X*
|
X
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
|
X
|
X*
|
X
|
X
|
X*
|
|
X*
|
X
|
11
|
|
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures
|
X*
|
X
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
12
|
|
Cannot
demonstrate
knowledge
on
regular
assessment
even
with
provision
of
accommodations
|
X*
|
|
X*
|
|
X*
|
|
X
|
|
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
X*
|
X
|
8
|
|
Not
based on
disability
category
label
|
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
X*
|
|
|
|
X
|
X*
|
X
|
8
|
|
Not
progressing
at rate
expected
to reach
grade
level
proficiency
within
school
year
covered
by IEP
|
|
X
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
|
X
|
X
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X
|
X
|
11
|
|
IEP
includes
goals
based on
grade-level
content
standards
|
X
|
X
|
X*
|
|
|
|
X
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
X
|
|
9
|
|
Receives
accommodations
during
classroom
instruction
|
X
|
|
X*
|
|
|
X*
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
X*
|
|
X*
|
6
|
|
Receives
specialized/
individualized
instruction
|
|
X*
|
X
|
X
|
X*
|
|
X*
|
|
|
X*
|
|
|
X*
|
|
7
|
|
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors
|
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
|
X*
|
|
|
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
7
|
|
Not
receiving
instruction
based on
extended
or
alternate
standards
or not
eligible
to take
AA-AAS
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
X*
|
X
|
|
|
|
X*
|
|
7
|
|
Previous
performance
on state
assessment
|
X*
|
X*
|
|
X
|
|
X*
|
X*
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Not
based on
placement
setting
|
X
|
|
X
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
6
|
|
Does not
have a
significant
cognitive
disability
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
Performance
multiple
years
behind
grade
level
expectations
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
X*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X*
|
|
3
|
|
Other
Criteria
(See
Table
A-6 for
Specifications)
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
X*
|
14
|
*See Table A-6 for
additional information about these
criteria.
Table A-6.
Specifications and Descriptions of
Participation Criteria
|
State
|
Specifications
and
Descriptions
|
|
Arizona
|
Learning
grade-level
content:
The
student
has
access
to
high-quality
instruction
based on
grade-level
Academic
Content
Standards
and the
student’s
IEP
goals
and
objective
focus on
enrolled
grade-level
Academic
Content
Standards.
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
Based on
all
available
predictive
data,
the IEP
team has
determined
that
this
student
most
likely
will not
be able
to
demonstrate
proficiency
of the
grade
level
Academic
Content
Standards
through
further
administration
of AIMS,
but may
be able
to with
enhanced
accessibility.
Use a
minimum
of 2
additional
data
sources
listed
and
attach:
district
assessments
or other
comparable
measurement;
performance
on other
assessments
that can
validly
document
academic
achievement
(DIBELS,
Reading
First);
Response
to
Intervention
documentation;
measurable
progress
on
academic
standards
IEP
goals.
Cannot
demonstrate
knowledge
on
regular
assessment
even
with
provision
of
accommodations:
The
student
has not
met
proficiency
on AIMS
(grades
3-8 and
10)
TerraNova
or
Stanford
10
(grades
2 and
9), or
another
state’s
assessment
for the
last
three
years,
with or
without
standard
accommodations.
Previous
performance
on state
assessment:
The
student
has not
met
proficiency
on AIMS
(grades
3-8 and
10),
TerraNova
(grades
2 and
9), or
another
state’s
assessment
for the
last
three
years,
with or
without
standard
accommodations.
(AIMS EA
may
begin at
the
fourth
grade
with 2
years of
state
testing
history).
Other:
The
student
is
exposed
to high
quality
instruction
focusing
on
grade-level
Academic
Content
Standards.
|
|
California
|
Not
based on
disability
category
label:
The
decision
to
participate
in the
CMA is
not
based
solely
on the
student’s
disability
(i.e.,
deafness/blindness,
visual,
auditory
and/or
motor
disabilities)
but
rather
the
student’s
inability
to
appropriately
demonstrate
his or
her
knowledge
on the
California
content
standards
through
the CST.
Receives
specialized/individualized
instruction:
The
student
has
received
special
education
and
related
services
to
support
access
to and
progress
in the
general
curriculum
in which
the
student
is
enrolled.
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors:
The
decision
to
participate
in the
CMA is
not
based on
excessive
or
extended
absences;
the
decision
to
participate
in the
CMA is
not
based on
language,
culture,
or
economic
differences.
Previous
performance
on state
assessment:
The
student
shall
have
taken
the
California
Standards
Test
(CST) in
a
previous
year and
scored
Below
Basic or
Far
Below
Basic in
the
subject
area
being
assessed
by the
CMA and
may have
taken
the CST
with
modifications.
Previous
participation
in the
California
Alternate
Performance
Assessment
(CAPA)
shall
not
preclude
a
student
from
participation
in the
CMA. The
student
shall
have
taken
the CAPA
Level
2-5 in
two
previous
years
and
received
a
performance
level of
either
Proficient
or
Advanced.
Other:
The
decision
to
participate
is not
based on
the
amount
of time
the
student
is
receiving
special
education
services;
the
student
will not
receive
a
proficient
score on
the CST
(even
with
provision
of
accommodations)
based on
evidence
from
multiple,
valid,
and
objective
measures
of
student
progress
(or lack
of
progress).
|
|
Connecticut
|
Learning
grade
level
content:
The
student’s
IEP
includes
goals
that are
based on
the
academic
content
standards
for the
grade in
which
the
student
is
enrolled
and he
or she
is
receiving
instruction
in grade
level
content.
(Math:
Yes/No).
(Reading:
Yes/No).
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
The IEP
team
must
look at
data
from
multiple,
valid
measures
of the
student’s
progress
over
time.
Such
examples
may
include,
but are
not
limited
to, how
a
student
scored
on
statewide
assessments
in the
past, as
well as
district,
school,
or grade
level
assessments.
Cannot
demonstrate
knowledge
on
regular
assessment
even
with
provision
of
accommodations:
The IEP
team
should
consider
whether
or not
the
student
may
participate
in the
standard
CMT/CAPT
with
appropriate
accommodations,
including
assistive
technology,
and has
exhausted
these
options.
Not
based on
disability
category
label:
Eligible
students
may have
a
disability
in any
disability
category:
autism,
deaf-blindness,
emotional
disturbance,
hearing
impairment,
specific
learning
disability,
intellectual
disability,
multiple
disabilities,
orthopedic
impairment,
speech
and
language
impairment,
traumatic
brain
injury,
visual
impairment,
or other
health
impairment.
Typically,
but not
always,
you may
find
students
in the
following
categories
to be
eligible:
intellectual
disability,
autism,
traumatic
brain
injury,
or
multiple
disabilities.
Not
progressing
at rate
expected
to reach
grade
level
proficiency
within
school
year
covered
by IEP:
The IEP
team
must be
reasonably
certain
that
while
the
student
may make
significant
progress,
despite
receiving
appropriate
instruction
including
special
education
and
related
services
that are
specifically
designed
to
address
the
student’s
individual
needs,
he/she
is not
likely
to
achieve
grade
level
proficiency
in the
year
covered
by the
IEP;
student’s
disability
precluded
him/her
from
achieving
grade-level
proficiency
at the
same
rate as
his/her
non-disabled
peers.
IEP
includes
goals
based on
grade-level
content
standards:
The IEP
reflects
curriculum
and
daily
instruction
that
focuses
on
standards
based
goals in
the
areas of
math,
language
arts,
and/or
science,
particularly
for the
area in
which
the
CMT/CAPT
(MAS)
will be
taken.
The IEP
must
reflect
access
to the
grade
level
curriculum.
This is
particularly
true for
students
placed
in
private
special
education
schools/facilities,
residential,
hospital
or
homebound
placements.
Receives
accommodations
during
classroom
instruction:
Appropriate
accommodations
have
been
provided
in the
classroom
and for
state/district
assessments
or
evidence
is
provided
that the
student
would
not make
proficiency
on the
CMT or
CAPT
even
with the
provision
of
accommodations.
(Math:
Yes/No).
(Reading:
Yes/No).
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors:
The
student’s
inability
to reach
proficiency
is not
due to
excessive
absences
unrelated
to his
or her
disability,
or to
social,
cultural,
environmental,
or
economic
factors.
(Math:
Yes/No).
(Reading:
Yes/No).
Other:
Student
receives
classroom
modifications;
students
placed
in
special
education
schools/facilities,
residential
hospital
or
homebound
placements
are
eligible
to take
the
CMT/CAPT
(MAS)
based on
the
decision
of the
IEP
team, if
the
student’s
IEP
includes
goals
based on
Connecticut’s
academic
standards,
also
known as
standards-based
IEP.
|
|
Indiana
|
Has IEP:
The
student
receives
special
education
services
due to
the
presence
of a
disability.
Learning
grade
level
content:
The
student
is able
to
meaningfully
access
curriculum
for the
grade in
which
the
student
is
enrolled.
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
There
must be
evidence
that the
disability
has
prevented
the
student
from
achieving
proficiency
as
measured
by
previous
ISTEP+
attempts
or
through
other
assessments
that
validly
document
grade-level
academic
achievement.
Not
progressing
at rate
expected
to reach
grade
level
proficiency
within
school
year
covered
by IEP:
The
student’s
case
conference
committee
agrees
that,
even
with
appropriate
instruction
and
services
designed
to meet
the
students’
individual
needs,
the
student
is not
likely
to
achieve
grade-level
proficiency
within
the same
time
frame as
other
students.
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors:
The
CCC’s
determination
that the
student
will be
assessed
on
modified
achievement
standards
cannot
be based
on
factors
such as:
excessive
or
extensive
absences;
social,
cultural,
or
economic
differences.
Other:
The
CCC’s
determination
that the
student
will be
assessed
on
modified
achievement
standards
cannot
be based
on
factors
such as:
the mere
identification
of a
disability;
concern
for AYP
calculations.
|
|
Kansas
|
Cannot
demonstrate
knowledge
on
regular
assessment
even
with
provision
of
accommodations:
Accommodations
alone
[on
classroom
assessments]
do not
allow
the
student
to fully
demonstrate
knowledge.
Receives
specialized/
individualized
instruction:
Intensive
individualized
instruction;
the
student
needs
significant
changes
in the
complexity
and
scope of
the
general
standards
to show
progress
in the
curriculum;
requires
intensive
specially
designed
instruction,
intensive
individually
designed
supports,
and
extensive
instruction.
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors:
The
decision
to
determine
a
student’s
eligibility
to
participate
in the
KAMM may
not
result
primarily
from:
excessive
or
extended
absence,
any
specific
categorical
label,
or
social,
cultural,
or
economic
differences.
Other:
Student
needs
supports
to
significantly
reduce
the
complexity
or
breadth
of
assessment
items;
requires
differentiated
content
for
classroom
assessment;
needs to
show
what
they
know
differently;
accommodations
alone do
not
allow
the
student
to fully
demonstrate
knowledge;
consistently
requires
instruction
in
pre-requisite
skills
to the
grade
level
indicators
being
assessed;
despite
the
provision
of
research
based
interventions,
the
student
is not
progressing
at the
rate
expected
for
grade
level;
student
classroom
achievement
and
performance
is
significantly
below
grade
level
peers.
|
|
Louisiana
|
Receives
accommodations
during
classroom
instruction:
The
Local
Education
Agency
(LEA) is
required
to
provide
the
student
with
accommodations
and
modifications
to
ensure
the
student
progresses
towards
meeting
his or
her IEP
goals
and
objectives
related
to the
general
education
curriculum.
Previous
performance
on state
assessment:
The
student
scored
at the
Unsatisfactory
level in
English
language
arts
and/or
mathematics
on the
previous
year’s
LEAP/iLEAP/GEE
or
participated
in LAA 1
or LAA
2.
Performance
multiple
years
behind
grade
level
expectations: The
student’s
IEP
reflects
a
functioning
grade
level in
English
language
arts
(including
reading)
and/or
mathematics
at least
three
(3)
grade
levels
below
the
actual
grade
level in
which he
or she
is
enrolled.
Other:
The
student’s
instructional
program
is
predominately
academic
in
nature,
and may
include
application
of
academic
content
across
environments
to
ensure
generalization
of
skills;
the
decision
to test
the
student
in LAA 2
is not
determined
administratively.
|
|
Maryland
|
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
The
student
must
demonstrate
that
he/she
cannot
attain
proficiency
on the
actual
grade
level
MSA
(each of
the
subjects
of the
HSA
series;
end of
course
assessments)
even
with the
provision
of
accommodations
based on
documented
multiple
valid
and
objective
measures
of
student
progress
(or lack
of
progress).
Examples
include
the
end-of-course
assessments,
State
assessments,
district-wide
assessments,
data
gathered
from
classroom
assessments,
and
other
formative
assessments
that can
validate
documented
academic
achievement
in
response
to
appropriate
instruction.
There
must be
enough
time to
document
the
progress
(or lack
of
progress)
in
response
to
appropriate
instruction.
Receives
specialized/
individualized
instruction:
The
student
has had
consecutive
years of
individualized
intensive
academic
instruction
intervention
in the
relevant
content
area(s)
consistent
with
his/her
IEP, and
although
progress
toward
grade-level
standards
(course
level
for
Mod-HSAs)
was
made,
he/she
is not
making
progress
at grade
level
(or
course
level
for
Mod-HSAs).
Previous
performance
on state
assessment:
For
Mod-HSA,
IEP
Decision-making
Process
Eligibility
Tool
asks for
documentation
of MSA
and HSA
performance.
Other:
The
student
requires
and
receives
modified
academic
achievement
standards
aligned
with the
Maryland
Academic
Content
Standards
for the
student’s
grade-level
during
assessments
and
instruction.
In
addition,
specific
accommodations
implemented
in these
instructional
and
assessment
settings
may
include:
test
items
are less
complex,
fewer
and
shorter
reading
passages,
shorter
or less
difficult
questions,
and test
items
with
fewer
answer
choices;
the
instructional
performance
in the
relevant
content
area(s)
is
identified
on the
IEP [as
measured
by
documented
valid
and
objective
measures
of the
student’s
performance
over
time on
a
State’s
general
assessment
and
other
assessments
to
include
end-of-course
assessments,
State
assessments,
district-wide
assessments,
data
gathered
from
classroom
assessments
or other
formative
assessments]
is
substantially
below
grade
level;
the
student
has been
provided
with
supplementary
aids and
services
that are
necessary
for the
student
to
advance
towards
attaining
his/her
annual
goals,
to be
involved
and make
progress
in the
general
curriculum.
|
|
Michigan
|
Learning
grade-
level
content:
The
student
must
have
access
to and
instruction
in
grade-level
content
for the
grade in
which
the
student
is
enrolled.
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
There is
no set
length
of time
during
which
the data
must be
gathered,
but
there
must be
enough
time to
document
the
progress
(or lack
of
progress)
in
response
to
appropriate
instruction.
Measures,
such as
the
following,
may be
used:
end-of-course
assessments,
district-wide
assessments,
classroom
assessments,
formative
assessments,
standardized
achievement
testing,
State
assessments
(MEAP or
MI-Access
alone
would
not be
sufficient
documentation
to show
progress
or lack
of
progress).
Not
based on
disability
category
label:
The IEP
team
must not
base
their
decision
to
participate
in the
MEAP-Access
assessments
solely
on the
student’s
special
education
category.
IEP
includes
goals
based on
grade-level
content
standards:
The
IEP must
include
goals
that are
based on
Michigan’s
grade-level
content
standards
for the
grade in
which
the
student
is
enrolled
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors:
The IEP
team
must not
base
their
decision
to
participate
in the
MEAP-Access
assessments
solely
on the
student’s
ethnicity
or
economic
background;
a
student’s
lack of
progress
cannot
be
solely
due to
excessive
absences.
Not
receiving
instruction
based on
extended
or
alternate
standards
or not
eligible
to take
AA-AAS:
The
student
has IEP
goals
based on
grade-level
content
standards,
not
extended
standards,
for the
grade in
which
the
student
is
enrolled.
Other:
Students
with a
Section
504 plan
are not
eligible
for
alternate
assessments;
the IEP
goals
should
be
attainable
within
the year
covered
by the
IEP;
building
blocks
to
attain
the
grade-level
goals
can
start
where
the
student
is
currently
functioning;
short-term
goals
and
objectives
may
incorporate
below
grade-level
GLCEs
needed
as
prerequisites
in order
to
attain
the
grade-level
goal;
instruction
must be
provided
by a
highly
qualified
teacher;
instruction
may be
provided
by a
general
education
or a
special
education
teacher
as long
as the
teacher
is
highly
qualified
in the
academic
subject
being
taught;
there
must be
objective
evidence
demonstrating
that the
student’s
disability
has
precluded
the
student
from
achieving
the
grade-level
standards
at the
same
level of
rigor as
the
student’s
peers;
participation
in state
assessment
decisions
must be
determined
annually
by the
IEP
team.
|
|
North
Carolina
|
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
The
student’s
disability
has
precluded
the
student
from
achieving
grade-level
proficiency,
as
demonstrated
by
objective
evidence
(e.g.,
results
from
standardized
state
tests,
IQ
tests,
achievement
tests,
aptitude
tests,
and
psychological
evaluations).
It is
expected
that
more
than one
objective
measure
would be
used to
assist
in the
evaluation
of a
student’s
assessment
placement;
students
whose
IEP
teams
feel
that
NCEXTEND2
is the
appropriate
assessment
for the
spring
end-of
grade
testing
should
participate
in the
general
administration
of the
Pretest-Grade
3.
Not
progressing
at rate
expected
to reach
grade
level
proficiency
within
school
year
covered
by IEP:
The
student’s
progress
in
response
to
high-quality
instruction
is such
that the
student
is not
likely
to
achieve
grade-level
proficiency
within
the
school
year
covered
by the
IEP.
IEP
includes
goals
based on
grade-level
content
standards:
The
student’s
IEP must
include
goals
that are
based on
grade-level
content
standards
and
provide
for
monitoring
of
student’s
progress
in
achieving
those
goals.
Other:
Participation
guidelines
for the
NCEXTEND2
OCS
[Occupational
Mathematics
I,
Occupation
English
I
(reading),
Life
Skills
Science
I and
II, and
the OCS
writing
assessment
at grade
10],
indicate
that the
student’s
IEP
goals
are
based on
course
content
standards
and
provide
for
monitoring
of
student’s
progress
in
achieving
those
goals;
and for
the
NCEXTEND2
in
writing,
the
student
is
assigned
to grade
10
according
to the
student
information
management
system
(e.g.,
SIMS/NC
WISE)
and is
following
the
Occupational
Course
of Study
(OCS);
the
student
does not
have a
current
504
plan;
the
student,
if
identified
as
limited
English
Proficient
(LEP),
must
also
have a
current
IEP; the
nature
of the
student’s
disability
may
require
assessments
that are
different
in
design.
|
|
North
Dakota
|
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
Other
data
that
supports
the need
for
"modified
achievement
standards"
such as
performance
on
achievement
tests,
classroom
tests,
and
other
pertinent
information.
Cannot
demonstrate
knowledge
on
regular
assessment
even
with
provision
of
accommodations:
The
student’s
curriculum
is so
individualized
that the
NDSA
(even
with
accommodations)
will not
reflect
what the
student
is being
taught.
Not
progressing
at rate
expected
to reach
grade
level
proficiency
within
school
year
covered
by IEP:
Has
persistent
learning
difficulties
prohibiting
him/her
from
making
grade-level
achievement
in one
year.
IEP
includes
goals
based on
grade-level
content
standards:
It is
recommended
that
students
that
participate
in the
NDAA2
have
standards
based
IEP’s
(at the
appropriate
grade
level)
that
allow
the
student
to work
on
academic
standards
prior to
assessment.
This is
particularly
important
in the
subjects
of math,
reading,
language
arts,
and
science
at the
grade
levels
assessed.
Receives
specialized/
individualized
instruction:
The
student’s
curriculum
is so
individualized
that the
NDSA
(even
with
accommodations)
will not
reflect
what the
student
is being
taught.
Other:
The
student
participates
in the
general
education
curriculum
with
ongoing
supports
and
services
from
special
education.
|
|
Ohio
|
Learning
grade
level
content:
Students
have
access
to grade
level
instruction
but may
demonstrate
the
following:
inadequate
mastery
of
necessary
pre-requisite
skills,
a need
for
individualized
pace,
more
intensity,
or
different
instructional
strategies.
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
Before
student
may
participate
in
AA-MAS,
multiple
valid
measures
of
student’s
progress
over
time
must
document
that
student
will not
achieve
grade-level
proficiency;
until
this
condition
is met,
student
participates
in the
general
education
assessment
with or
without
accommodations.
Cannot
demonstrate
knowledge
on
regular
assessment
even
with
provision
of
accommodations:
IEP
teams
shall
clearly
establish
that,
even
with
allowable
and
appropriate
accommodations
on the
general
assessment,
students
cannot
demonstrate
their
achievement
on the
full
range of
the
academic
content
standards;
students
may
still be
eligible
for the
AA-MAS
even if
they
demonstrate
some
proficiency
on
grade-level
content
using
instructional
accommodations
and/or
modifications.
Not
progressing
at rate
expected
to reach
grade
level
proficiency
within
school
year
covered
by IEP:
The IEP
team
must
determine
that the
student
will not
meet
proficiency
on the
grade
level
academic
content
standards
within
the year
the test
is
administered
even
with
intensive
interventions.
Documentation
of
multiple
valid
and
reliable
measures
substantiates
this
decision
and
should
be
available
for
state
review
as
requested.
Curriculum-based
measurement
could be
one
example
of
measurement
results
collected
consistently
and over
time.
IEP
includes
goals
based on
grade-level
content
standards:
Instruction
must be
adjusted
to
include
grade-level
content
before
student
may
participate
in the
AA-MAS;
until
this
condition
is met,
student
participates
in the
general
education
assessment,
with or
without
accommodations.
Other:
Student
may
demonstrate
top
performance
on the
state-wide
AA-AAS
to meet
eligibility
requirements
for the
AA-MAS
in a
specific
content
area.
IEP must
also
determine
that the
student
can
adequately
demonstrate
achievement
on the
AA-MAS
and
should
participate
in the
AA-MAS;
students
must
demonstrate
one or
more of
the
following
characteristics
during
instruction
and/or
testing:
lack of
focused
attention;
lack of
sustained
attention;
presence
of
processing/generalizing
problems,
including
planning;
and/or
poor
working
(short
term)
memory.
|
|
Oklahoma
|
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
The
decision
to
administer
an
alternate
assessment
(OMAAP
or OAAP
Portfolio)
must be
an IEP
team
decision
using
multiple
measures
as
objective
evidence
including:
previous
performance
on state
assessments;
other
assessments
that
document
academic
achievement;
and
student’s
progress,
to date,
in
response
to
appropriate
instruction.
Not
progressing
at rate
expected
to reach
grade
level
proficiency
within
school
year
covered
by IEP:
The IEP
team is
reasonably
certain
that the
student,
even if
he/she
is
receiving
access
to grade
level
curriculum,
taught
by
highly
qualified
teachers
and
makes
significant
progress,
will not
achieve
grade-level
proficiency
within
the year
covered
by the
IEP.
Receives
accommodations
during
classroom
instruction:
Students
with
disabilities
are
required
to be
provided
with
accommodations
and
modifications
to
ensure
progress
toward
meeting
his/her
IEP
goals
and
short-term
objectives
and/or
benchmarks
related
to the
general
education
curriculum.
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors:
The
student’s
difficulty
with
regular
curriculum
demands
is
primarily
due to
his/her
disability
and not
due to
excessive
absences
unrelated
to the
disability,
or
social,
cultural,
environmental,
or
economic
factors.
Other:
The
decision
to
administer
an
alternate
assessment
(OMAAP
or OAAP
Portfolio)
shall
not be
based on
the
amount
of time
the
student
receives
in
special
education,
or the
fact
that the
academic
achievement
of the
student
is
significantly
below
his/her
same age
peers;
the
student’s
disability
results
in
substantial
academic
difficulties;
the
student’s
IEP
reflects
curriculum
and
daily
instruction
that
focus on
modified
achievement
of the
standards
or
alternate
achievement
of the
standards;
the
student
received
evidence-based
response
to
intervention
and
continues
to
progress
below
grade
level
achievement
based on
classroom
assessments
or other
valid
measures.
|
|
Tennessee
|
Learning
grade-level
content:
The
IEP must
reflect
access
to grade
level
curriculum.
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
There
should
be
evidence
that the
student’s
disability
currently
prevents
reaching
grade
level
proficiency.
This
means
that the
IEP team
must
look at
data
from
multiple,
valid
measures
of the
student’s
progress
over
time
which
includes
objective
evidence
of the
effect
of the
disability
on
grade-level
proficiency,
progress
to date
in
response
to
appropriate
instruction,
and
progress
toward
meeting
annual
goals
based on
grade-level
academic
standards;
using
objective
evidence,
based on
multiple
measures,
and
collected
over a
period
of time,
IEP
teams
must
determine
annually
which
component
of
Tennessee’s
assessment
program
is
appropriate
for each
student.
Cannot
demonstrate
knowledge
on
regular
assessment
even
with
provision
of
accommodations:
Accommodations
alone do
not
allow
the
student
to fully
demonstrate
knowledge;
documented
accommodations
have
been
insufficient.
Not
based on
disability
category
label:
The
decision
to
determine
a
student’s
eligibility
to
participate
in the
alternate
assessment
may not
result
primarily
from:
any
specific
categorical
label.
Receives
specialized/
individualized
instruction:
Student
requires
intensive
specially
designed
instruction,
significant
individualized
supports,
and
altered
instructional
methods.
Not due
to
excessive
absences,
social,
cultural,
language,
economic,
or
environmental
factors:
The
decision
to
determine
a
student’s
eligibility
to
participate
in the
alternate
assessment
may not
result
primarily
from:
excessive
or
extended
absence;
social,
cultural,
or
economic
difference.
Not
receiving
instruction
based on
extended
or
alternate
standards
or not
eligible
to take
AA-AAS:
The
student’s
instruction
and IEP
goals
and
objectives
are not
based
primarily
on the
Alternate
Standards,
benchmarks
and
indicators.
The
student
is not
eligible
for the
1%
alternate
assessment
in the
content
area
being
considered.
(Eligibility
must be
determined
for each
content
area
separately.)
Performance
multiple
years
behind
grade
level
expectations:
Consistently
requires
instruction
in
pre-requisite
skills
to the
grade
level
indicators
being
assessed;
despite
the
provision
of
research-based
interventions,
the
student
is not
progressing
at the
rate
expected
for
grade
level;
student
classroom
achievement
and
performance
is
significantly
below
grade
level
peers.
Other:
The
student’s
learning
objectives
and
expected
outcomes
in the
academic
area
under
consideration
require
substantial
adjustment
to the
general
curriculum
of that
area;
the
student
needs
significant
changes
in the
complexity
and
scope of
the
general
standards
to show
progress
in the
curriculum;
requires
differentiated
content
for
classroom
assessment;
needs to
demonstrate
in a
different
manner
what
they
know.
|
|
Texas
|
Previous
performance
on
multiple
measures:
Multiple
valid
measures
of
evidence
may
include,
but are
not
limited
to,
state-developed
assessments,
informal
and
formal
classroom
assessments,
norm-referenced
tests,
and
criterion-referenced
tests.
Receives
accommodations
during
classroom
instruction:
Every
student
should
have an
IEP that
reflects
access
to the
grade-level
TEKS,
including
documentation
of the
modifications
and
accommodations
that the
student
needs
during
classroom
instruction
and
assessment.
Modifications
are
practices
and
procedures
that
change
the
nature
of the
task or
target
skill
while
accommodations
are
intended
to
reduce
or even
eliminate
the
effects
of a
student’s
disability
but do
not
reduce
learning
expectations.
Other:
Meets
some but
not all
of the
participation
criteria
of
TAKS-Alternate
(TAKS-Alt);
an
example
of a
student
who
meets
some but
not all
of the
participation
criteria
of
TAKS-Alt
may
include
but is
not
limited
to the
following:
a
student
may
require
supports
to
access
the
general
curriculum
and/or
require
direct,
intensive,
individualized
instruction
over a
period
of time
to
ensure
that he
or she
learns
and
retains
grade-level
skills;
requires
an
alternate
form of
TAKS
which is
more
closely
aligned
with
instructional
modifications
in order
to
demonstrate
knowledge
of the
grade-level
TEKS;
the
student
routinely
receives
modifications
to the
grade-level
curriculum
that
more
closely
resemble
those
offered
on
TAKS-M;
this may
include,
but is
not
limited
to,
reduced
number
of items
and
answer
choices
or
simpler
vocabulary
and
sentence
structure;
the
decision
to
administer
the
TAKS-M
is not
determined
administratively,
but
rather
by ARD
committee.
|
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Appendix B: State
Documents Used in Analysis
State Documents Used in
Analysis of States’ Criteria for
Participation in an Alternate Assessment
Based on Modified Academic Achievement
Standards
|
Arizona
|
Arizona
Department
of
Education
-
Alternate
Assessment
Eligibility
Determination
Arizona
Department
of
Education
-
Eligibility
Decision
Flow
Chart
for AIMS
http://www.ade.state.az.us/ess/SpecialProjects/aims-a/AIMSEligibilityFlowChart.pdf
|
|
California
|
California
Department
of
Education
- CMA
Participation
Criteria
and
Definition
of Terms
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/participcriteria.asp
California
Department
of
Education
– CMA
Participation
Criteria
for
Science
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/participcrisci.asp
|
|
Connecticut
|
Connecticut
State
Department
of
Education
-
Connecticut’s
CMT/CAPT
based on
Modified
Achievement
Standards
(MAS)
Participation
for
Students
with
Disabilities
IEP Team
Guidance
-
Preliminary
http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/mas/resources/EligCrit.pdf
Connecticut
State
Department
of
Education
-
CMT/CAPT
(Modified
Assessment
System—MAS)
PPT
Eligibility
Worksheet
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF/DEPS/Special/MAS_eligibility_worksheet.pdf
|
|
Indiana
|
Indiana
Department
of
Education
-
Criteria
for
Determining
Participation
in the
Alternate
Assessment
Based on
Modified
Academic
Achievement
Standards
in lieu
of the
General
Education
Assessment
http://www.doe.in.gov/exceptional/speced/docs/Assessment_Update_January_2009_AAMAAS_Criteria.pdf
|
|
Kansas
|
Kansas
State
Department
of
Education
-Statewide
Assessments
Participation
for
Students
with
Disabilities
- IEP
Team
Decision
Flowchart
http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iDZhGjaQDVI%3d&tabid=2371&mid=8885
Kansas
State
Department
of
Education
-KAMM
Eligibility
Criteria
http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iDZhGjaQDVI%3d&tabid=2371&mid=8885
Kansas
State
Department
of
Education
-
Eligibility
Criteria
for
Students
with
Significant
Cognitive
Disabilities
to
Participate
in the
Kansas
Alternate
Assessment
http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=iDZhGjaQDVI%3d&tabid=2371&mid=8885
|
|
Louisiana
|
Louisiana
Department
of
Education
-
LEAP
Alternate
Assessment,
Level 2
(LAA 2)
Participation
Criteria
for
Grades 4
- 11
http://doe.louisiana.gov/lde/uploads/7992.pdf
|
|
Maryland
|
Maryland
State
Department
of
Education
-
Criteria
for
Identifying
Students
with
Disabilities
for
Participation
in a
Mod-MSA
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/DB0483F2-76AC-40BA-A702-E1CF92BE3B1D/17109/CriteriaforIdentifyingStudentswithDisabilitiesforP.pdf
Maryland
State
Department
of
Education
-
Criteria
for
Identifying
Students
with
Disabilities
for
Participation
in a
Mod-HSA
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/DB0483F2-76AC-40BA-A702-E1CF92BE3B1D/17110/CriteriaforIdentifyingStudentswithDisabilitiesforP.pdf
Maryland
State
Department
of
Education
-
Mod-MSA:
Appendix
A: IEP
Decision-Making
Process
Eligibility
Tool
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/DB0483F2-76AC-40BA-A702-E1CF92BE3B1D/17114/ModMSAAppendixAIEPTeamDecisionMakingProcessEligibi.pdf
Maryland
State
Department
of
Education
-
Mod-HSA:
Appendix
B: IEP
Team
Decision-Making
Process
Eligibility
Tool
http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/DB0483F2-76AC-40BA-A702-E1CF92BE3B1D/17116/ModHSAAppendixBIEPTeamDecisionMakingProcessEligibi.pdf
|
|
Michigan
|
Michigan
Department
of
Education
-
MEAP-Access
Eligibility
Criteria
and
Guidelines
for
Participation
http://michigan.gov/documents/mde/MEAP-Access_Eligiblity_Criteria_and_Guidelines_030209_273134_7.pdf
|
|
North
Carolina
|
North
Carolina
Department
of
Public
Instruction
-
North
Carolina
Testing
Program
(Section
F: North
Carolina
Alternate
Assessments)
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/policyoperations/tswd/0809tswd.pdf
|
|
North
Dakota
|
North
Dakota
Department
of
Public
Instruction
-
Comparison
of
NDAA-1
and
NDAA-2
http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/resource/alternate/comparison.pdf
North
Dakota
Department
of
Public
Instruction
-
Assessment
Flowchart
for IEP
Team
Decisions
http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/resource/alternate/IEPflowchart.pdf
North
Dakota
Department
of
Public
Instruction
-
Students
with
Disabilities
and the
North
Dakota
State
Assessments:
Information
for
Parents
and
Educators
http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/resource/alternate/brochure.pdf
|
|
Ohio
|
Ohio
Department
of
Education
-
Eligibility
Guidelines
Assessment
Based on
Modified
Achievement
Standards
(AA-MAS)
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=62031
Ohio
Department
of
Education
-
Eligibility
Guidelines
for
Modified
Assessment
based on
Modified
Achievement
Standards
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/DocumentManagement/DocumentDownload.aspx?DocumentID=62033
|
|
Oklahoma
|
Oklahoma
State
Department
of
Education
-
Criteria
Checklist
for
Assessing
Students
with
Disabilities
on State
Assessments
http://www.sde.state.ok.us/AcctAssess/pdf/OMAAP/Criteria_Check.pdf
|
|
Tennessee
|
Tennessee
Department
of
Education
-
Statewide
Assessments
Participation
for
Students
with
Disabilities
IEP Team
Decision
Flowchart
http://www.state.tn.us/education/assessment/doc/MAAS_flowchart.pdf
Tennessee
Department
of
Education
-
TCAP-MAAS
Eligibility
Criteria
http://www.state.tn.us/education/assessment/doc/MAAS_flowchart.pdf
Tennessee
Department
of
Education
-
Eligibility
Criteria
for
Participation
in
TCAP-MAAS
For
Students
with
Disabilities
http://www.state.tn.us/education/assessment/doc/MAAS_flowchart.pdf
Tennessee
Department
of
Education
-
Memorandum:
Initial
Guidance
on the
Use of
the New
TCAP-Modified
Academic
Achievement
Standards
Assessment
(TCAP-MAAS)
for
Students
with
Disabilities
Enrolled
in
Grades
3-8
http://state.tn.us/education/assessment/doc/MAAS_initial_guid_memo.pdf
Tennessee
Department
of
Education
-
Tennessee’s
Statewide
Assessment
Based on
Modified
Academic
Achievement
Standards
-
TCAP-MAAS:
Parent
and
School
Initial
Guidance
http://state.tn.us/education/assessment/doc/MAAS_initial_guid_explan.pdf
|
|
Texas
|
Texas
Education
Agency
-
Texas
Assessment
of
Knowledge
and
Skills-Modified
(TAKS-M):
Participation
Requirements
for
TAKS–M
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/taksm/participationreq.pdf
Texas
Texas
Education
Agency
-
Texas
Assessment
of
Knowledge
and
Skills–Modified
(TAKS–M):
Descriptors
for the
Participation
Requirements
for
TAKS–M
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/taksm/participationreq_descriptors.pdf
Texas
Education
Agency
-
Texas
Assessment
of
Knowledge
and
Skills-Alternate
(TAKS-Alt):
Participation
Requirements
for
TAKS-Alt
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/taksalt/training/participation_requirements_july_2007.pdf
|
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Appendix C: 2009
Participation Guidelines
PDF document
Top of page |
Table of Contents
|
