View or download the full report as a PDF document.

States’ Participation Guidelines for Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) in 2010   

Synthesis Report 82

May 2011

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

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• Overview
• Results
• Discussion
• References
• Appendix A: Participation Guidelines Characteristics by State
• Appendix B: State Documents Used in Analysis 
• Appendix C: Compilation of States’ Participation Guidelines
  Please refer to the PDF version of this document for Appendix C.

Executive Summary

Federal legislation requires that all students participate in state accountability systems. Most students with disabilities participate in the regular assessment, with or without accommodations. Students with more significant cognitive disabilities participate in the Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS). A few states also have an Alternate Assessment Based on Grade-level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS) for students with disabilities who need testing formats or procedures that are not included in the regular assessment and are not addressed with the use of accommodations. In April 2007, federal regulations offered states the flexibility to develop an Alternate Assessment based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS). States are not required to provide this assessment option.

Since 2007, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has annually compiled, analyzed, and summarized states’ participation guidelines for the AA-MAS. The purpose of this report is to update the information gathered from previous reports. As of November 2010, 17 states—California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—had publicly available participation guidelines for an assessment the state considered to be an AA-MAS. As of February 2011, four states—Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and 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.

The current study suggests that states are continuing to develop or update participation guidelines for the AA-MAS. All states included text-based description of guidelines; some states included flow charts or decision trees, as well as checklists. Other documents were also found, including glossaries and student case scenarios. Over half of the states in the current study required parent notification and implications for high school graduation be included as part of the decision-making process.

All states required that the student have a current IEP and that the student not be progressing at the rate expected for grade-level proficiency within the school year covered by the IEP. Over two-thirds of states included the following criteria: learning grade-level content, previous performance on multiple measures, IEP includes goals based on grade-level content standards, receives specialized/individualized instruction, and previous performance on state assessment.

Top of page | Table of Contents

Overview

All students, including students with disabilities, participate in statewide assessments. Annual testing ensures that schools, districts, and states are held accountable for students’ educational achievement. Most students participate in the regular state assessment with or without accommodations. A few students with the most significant cognitive disabilities take an Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement standards (AA-AAS). A few states also have an Alternate Assessment Based on Grade-level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS) for students with disabilities who need testing formats or procedures that are not included in the regular assessment and are not addressed with the use of accommodations. In April 2007, federal regulations offered states the flexibility to offer another assessment option—an Alternate Assessment based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS). States may count up to two percent of students participating in an AA-MAS for annual yearly progress (AYP). States are not required to offer this assessment option.

According to the regulations, students eligible for an AA-MAS must have an Individualized Educational Program (IEP). In addition, the IEP must be standards-based and include annual goals based on grade-level academic content standards. Students who take the AA-MAS must have access to grade-level curriculum. IEP teams are required to gather objective and valid evidence from multiple sources (e.g., previous state assessments, formative assessments, classroom assessments, etc.) to demonstrate the student will not achieve grade-level proficiency in the particular content area because of his or her disability. Moreover, IEP teams must demonstrate that, even if the student is provided with appropriate instruction designed for the student’s individual needs, he or she is unlikely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the student’s IEP (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, AA-GLAS, 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 February 2011, only four states—Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and 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 fourth time the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has tracked states’ participation guidelines for the AA-MAS. Each time NCEO has analyzed the guidelines (Lazarus, Hodgson, & Thurlow, 2010; Lazarus, Rogers, Cormier, & Thurlow, 2008; Lazarus, Thurlow, Christensen, & Cormier, 2007) there have been considerable changes. Please refer to the NCEO web site at http://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 for the AA-MAS identified states that had an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS and provided each states’ participation guidelines (Lazarus et al., 2010). As of 2010 the federal regulations offering states the option to develop an AA-MAS have now been in place for more than three years. In 2007 when we first tracked participation guidelines for an AA-MAS, only a few states had publicly available guidelines. In each of the following two years more states had either developed or were in the process of developing an AA-MAS and had publicly available guidelines. Continuing the trend, we hypothesized that there would be more states that had either developed or were in the process of developing an AA-MAS, and that there was a need to update the report in 2010.

Similar to the previous report (Lazarus et al., 2010), the specific questions that we sought to answer in this study were:

1. As of November 2010, 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 used in the 2009 update (Lazarus et al., 2010). Information concerning states’ participation guidelines for the AA-MAS was gathered from state Web sites in September through November of 2010. NCEO compiled and analyzed the data. Profiles were developed for each state to document the data collected based upon the participation criteria information found. 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.

Through collecting information from state Web sites, we found that some states provided training materials on participation guidelines. Nine states had posted additional training materials. Some of the training materials included electronic “PDF” manuals or PowerPoint presentations. One state (Pennsylvania) posted a video accompaniment to the state’s participation guidelines.

We analyzed the participation guidelines for Reading/ELA and Mathematics. In most states the guidelines were inclusive of all content area tests within the states’ AA-MAS. A few states, however, developed guidelines for another content area (e.g., Science). We did not analyze states’ participation guidelines for additional content areas.

Participation criteria are included in this report when they are mentioned in the policies of at least three states. If the criterion was not common to at least three states, it was included in the “other” category. In 2010, we included three new guidelines by name: “receives or has received research-based interventions,” “receives high-quality instruction,” and “not determined administratively.” One criterion identified by name in previous reports, “performance multiple years behind grade-level expectations,” was moved to the other category in the current report because too few states (i.e., less than three) included this criterion in their 2010 participation guidelines.

Figures summarizing the results of this analysis are presented in the Results section of this report. Comparisons were also made between findings in the current update and the 2009 report (Lazarus et al., 2010). 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’ 2010 participation guidelines documents.

Top of page | Table of Contents

Results

As of November 2010, 17 states—California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—had publicly available participation guidelines for an assessment the state considered to be an AA-MAS. The 2009 report (Lazarus et al., 2010) found 14 states—Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas—with publicly available participation guidelines for an AA-MAS. Four additional states had guidelines in 2010 (Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania). Additionally, several states included in the previous report revised their participation guidelines for 2010, and one state included in the previous report (Arizona) no longer had publicly available guidelines. Table 1 provides the state, the name of the state’s AA-MAS, as well as the content area and grade.

Table 1. AA-MAS Name, Content Area, and Grade Described by State

¹ The high school CAPT MAS is available as a live test for identified grade 10 students and as a retest for individual students in grade 11 and 12.
² In addition to tests for accountability, Kansas offers KAMM Opportunity to Learn (OTL) assessments for grades 9-12 in Math, Reading, and Science. The OTL assessments are designed to give students the opportunity to learn the content standards prior to participation. This assessment option “provides Kansas High Schools with flexibility in determining when to assess students” (p. 66; see 2009-2010 Kansas Assessment Examiner’s Manual).
³ In 2010 North Carolina discontinued the NCEXTEND2 OCS for Occupational English I, Occupational Mathematics I, and Life Skills Science I and II.

Format

The participation guidelines of all 17 states included text-based description of the guidelines. The guidelines of seven states also included a flow chart or decision tree, and seven states included a checklist in addition to text (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Format of Participation Guidelines Documents for AA-MAS

Five states offered other formats for participation guidelines. Two states provided a glossary to define terms within the text-based participation guidelines. Two states provided cases studies or student scenarios to help determine which assessment option is appropriate for a student. For example, Texas provided a table for student scenarios that gave a student description and assessment decision or rationale. The student description included information about the student’s grade-level, special education status, skill level, instruction types, classroom accommodations, and other relevant information. The assessment decision or rationale offered a description of what assessment option was best for the student case. One state offered an electronic version of the flow chart with interactive comments, which could be accessed by selecting the flow chart for more information.

See Tables A-1 and A-2 in Appendix A for additional information on participation guidelines formats. Also, see Appendix B for a list of relevant documents states posted on their Web sites. Some states posted more documents than others related to student participation decisions for the AA-MAS. Four states posted one document containing participation guidelines and seven states posted three or more documents containing participation guidelines. A few states included participation guidelines within their yearly manual for state testing. For example, both North Dakota and Texas offered participation guidelines in separate documents as well as in their state manuals. Appendix C contains a compilation of states’ 2010 guidelines.

Changes Since 2009

Similar to the previous report (Lazarus et al., 2010), all states in the current analysis used text-based descriptions of criteria in their participation guidelines. Seven states of the seventeen states (41%) in 2010 had flow charts or decision trees which is a small decrease compared to seven out of fourteen states (50%) in 2009. Seven of the seventeen states (41%) had checklists in 2010 as compared to six states out of fourteen (43%) in 2009. The use of case studies or scenarios to help determine the best assessment option increased to two states from one in 2009. For the first time, one state had an interactive format for its flow chart in 2010.

Combination Participation

Most of the states in the current report allowed combination participation, which means students may take different assessments across content areas (see Figure 2). For example, a student may participate in the regular assessment for Mathematics, but participate in the AA-MAS for English Language Arts. Only one state did not offer specifications for combination participation within its participation guidelines. Two states allowed combination participation with no specifications for how the assessments may be combined. Three states allowed combination participation across the regular assessment, AA-MAS, and AA-AAS.

A majority (12 states) allowed combination participation across only the regular assessment and AA-MAS. These states often specified that a student must take the regular assessment for a content area unless he or she qualifies for the AA-MAS. For example, Georgia specified that “if the answer to any of the criteria is “ ‘NO,’ the student is not eligible to participate in the CRCT-M in that content area and must participate in the general CRCT.” Pennsylvania indicated that “IEP teams might decide that a student take the PSSA-M Math test and the PSSA-M Science test with or without accommodations but the student will take the standard PSSA Reading test (with or without accommodations).” Table A-3 in Appendix A provides additional information on combination participation.

Figure 2. Combination Participation.

Changes Since 2009

More states in 2010 only allowed combination participation across the AA-MAS and regular assessment than in 2009. Twelve states in 2010 (71%) allowed this type of combination participation compared to nine states in 2009 (64%). Three states allowed participation across the regular assessment, AA-MAS, and AA-AAS in both 2010 and 2009. States allowing combination participation without further specification increased in 2010 to two states 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 parents, as members of the child’s IEP team, must be informed of their child’s participation in an AA-MAS and that their child’s achievement will be measured based on modified academic achievement standards.

Figure 3. Parent Notification and Graduation Considerations Information

The participation guidelines of 12 states required implications for high school graduation to be considered prior to participation. As indicated in Table A-4 in Appendix A, seven of the twelve states specified that participation in an AA-MAS would not preclude students from attempting to complete requirements for a regular high school diploma.

Many of the guidelines differed across states. For example, as indicated in Appendix Table A-4, Virginia stated an “eligibility decision may not result primarily from the belief that the student does not need this assessment to be promoted to the next grade or to graduate with a diploma.” Louisiana required parents or guardians to initial that they understood four statements regarding graduation implications. Each statement could be understood from the perspective of the parent or child. For example:

I am aware that testing in LAA 2 means my child (I) is (am) having significant academic difficulties in Reading, language arts and/or Mathematics. It is an IEP team decision, based on the needs of my child (my needs), for my child (me) to participate in LAA 2.

Pennsylvania shared its graduation implications in terms of “no consequences with respect to high school graduation.” Minnesota included different information regarding graduation and stated:

If a student meets or exceeds the standards on the MCA or MCA-Modified, then the student has met the state graduation requirement for the subject. Unlike the MCA, the MCA-Modified has no GRAD items embedded in it. Students who are not proficient on the high school Reading or Mathematics MCA-Modified can take the GRAD retest. If a student with an IEP does not fulfill the Reading or Mathematics graduation requirement by being proficient on the MCA-Modified or by achieving a scale score of 50 on the GRAD retest, the IEP team can establish an individual passing score. The IEP team can set the individual passing score on the initial administration of the MCA-Modified or on a GRAD retest.

Table A-4 in Appendix A provides additional information on parent notification and graduation considerations.

Changes Since 2009

In 2010, a smaller percentage of states documented the need for parent notification prior to participation in an AA-MAS. Nine out of seventeen states (53%) in 2010 required notification, while nine of the fourteen states (64%) required notification in 2009. A greater percentage of states required consideration of graduation implications in 2010 than in 2009. In 2010, 12 out of 17 (71%) states required graduate implications to be considered while 8 of 14 states (57%) required implications to be considered in 2009. Overall, this showed an increasing trend of states that required graduation implications each year since 2008.

Participation Criteria

Participation criteria for an AA-MAS varied across states. Some participation criteria were common to all states while other criteria were mentioned in only a few state participation guidelines (see Figure 4). Details on the criteria of the specific states are provided in Tables A-5 and A-6 in Appendix A.

Figure 4. AA-MAS Participation Criteria

Has IEP. All states (n = 17) required that students have a current IEP to participate in the AA-MAS. Students must be eligible for and receiving special education services prior to participation. For example, Minnesota and Ohio both begin their flow charts by asking, “Does the student have an IEP?”

Not Progressing at Rate Expected to Reach Grade-level Proficiency Within School Year Covered by IEP. All of the states (n = 17) in the current report indicated that even with the provision of appropriate instruction designed for the student’s needs, the student is not likely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by his or her IEP. For example, North Dakota’s guidelines said, “Does the student have persistent learning difficulties that prohibited him/her from making grade-level achievement in one year?”

Learning Grade-Level Content. Most states (n = 16) required that eligible students must have access to grade-level instruction. For example, Virginia specified that students participating in the Virginia AA-MAS are expected to learn grade-level content but may need more time and a
variety of instructional and assessment supports. Pennsylvania required evidence documenting an opportunity to learn grade-level academic content (i.e., attendance data, grade-level standards-aligned IEP goals, instructional accommodations and/or modifications, or intensive research-based interventions).

Previous Performance on Multiple Measures. Most states (n = 16) required that a student’s performance on multiple, valid measures over a period of time be taken into consideration. Typical measures used in state guidelines were district-wide assessments, state assessments, formative assessments, and classroom assessments or progress monitoring. Some states were less specific than other states. For example, Indiana’s guidelines said that evidence about a disability preventing a student from achieving proficiency is measured by “previous ISTEP+ attempts or through other assessments that validly document grade-level academic achievement.”

IEP Includes Goals Based on Grade-Level Content Standards. Almost 90% of the states in the current report (n = 15) indicated that student’s IEP goals must be based on grade-level content standards. For example, North Carolina’s guidelines specified that “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.” Moreover, some states specified that a student must have a standards-based IEP. For example, Tennessee’s guidelines said:

The IEP must document annual goals that address the skills specified in the content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled. These are also known as standards-based IEPs, in which the IEP goals are aligned to the state content standards; the IEP reflects curriculum and daily instruction that focuses on standards-based goals in the content area(s) in which the MAAS will be taken.

Receives Specialized/Individualized Instruction. More than three-quarters of the states (n = 13) stipulated that eligible students must receive specialized or individualized classroom instruction. Some states specified that individualized instruction must include special education and related services to meet a student’s needs. For example, Connecticut’s guidelines said:

The IEP team must be reasonably certain that while the student may make significant progress and is 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.

Other states were more specific. Kansas’s guidelines said, “the student needs significant changes in the complexity and scope of the general standards to show progress in the curriculum.” Kansas also required intensive specially designed instruction, intensive individualized supports, and extensive instruction.

Previous Performance on State Assessment. More than two-thirds of the states (n = 12) included information about previous student performance on the state assessment within the state participation guidelines. Furthermore, many states identified the level at which students should test on the regular assessment before they were considered eligible for the AA-MAS. A few states identified students who had taken the alternate assessment who may be eligible based upon a specific performance level. For example, California’s guidelines said:

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.

Not Based on Disability Category Label. Almost two-thirds of the states (n = 11) indicated that eligibility for the AA-MAS must not be dependent on disability category label. For example, Georgia’s guidelines specified that “the decision to participate in the CRCT-M is not based on a specific eligibility or combination of disabilities (i.e., deafness/blindness, visual, auditory, and/or motor disabilities), but rather the student’s inability to appropriately demonstrate their knowledge of the Georgia Performance Standards.”

Not Due to Excessive Absences, Social, Cultural, Language, Economic, or Environmental Factors. Almost two-thirds of the states (n = 11) 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 11 states provided factors not affecting eligibility that approximated, but were not identical to, the above factors. For example, Georgia’s guidelines required that the decision to participate in an AA-MAS may not be based on “excessive or extended absences” or “language, cultural, or economic differences.” Other states included additional details about what could not be used to determine student’s eligibility for an AA-MAS. Virginia indicated that “VMAST eligibility decision may not result primarily from any specific categorical label (e.g., disability, ethnicity, gender, social, cultural, economic status, ESL),” or “excessive or extended absence.”

Receives Accommodations During Classroom Instruction. Over half of the states (n = 9) required that students receive accommodations during classroom instruction. For example, Louisiana’s guidelines said, “The student requires supports to access the general education curriculum and may require accommodations during classroom instruction and tests.” Some states also provided examples of appropriate accommodations used across instructional and assessment settings. For example, Virginia included “instructional strategies and resources, frequent and structured prompting and cueing, and assistive technology” in its participation guidelines.

Not Receiving Instruction Based on Extended or Alternate Standards or Not Eligible to Take AA-AAS. Eight states indicated that students must not receive instruction based on extended or alternate standards to participate in an AA-MAS. For example, Michigan’s guidelines said, “The student has IEP goals based on grade-level content standards, not extended standards, for the grade in which the student is enrolled.” Kansas’ guidelines indicated that the “student is not eligible for the alternate assessment in the content area being considered.” A few states included both aspects of the criterion. Pennsylvania’s guidelines said “students considered for the PSSA-M do not have significant cognitive disabilities and should not be held to alternate achievement standards.”

Does Not Have a Significant Cognitive Disability. Eight states stipulated that eligible students may not have a significant cognitive disability. Often states included this guideline as an item on their flow chart or checklist (i.e., Does the student have a significant cognitive disability?). If the answer to the question was “yes,” the student was not eligible to take the AA-MAS.

Cannot Demonstrate Knowledge on Regular Assessment even with Provision of Accommodations. About 40% of the states in the current report (n = 7) said that students must be unable to demonstrate knowledge on the regular assessment even with appropriate accommodations. For example, Ohio’s guidelines said, “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.”

Not Based on Placement Setting. Six states specified that eligibility to participate in the state AA-MAS could not be based on placement setting. Texas’ guidelines said that the decision to administer the TAKS-M is not based solely on placement setting, but is determined by the Admission, Review and Dismissal committee (ARD). Oklahoma’s guidelines said, “it shall not be based on the location of service delivery.”

Receives or Has Received Research-based Interventions. Some states (n = 5) specified that for a student to participate in the AA-MAS, he or she must have received or is currently receiving research-based interventions. For example, Maryland’s guidelines indicated that a list must be made to record what specific research-based Reading or Mathematics interventions are used that are individualized for the student.

Not Determined Administratively. Four states indicated that eligibility to participate in the AA-MAS should not be determined administratively. For example, Georgia’s guidelines specified that “the decision to participate in the CRCT-M is NOT based on an administrative decision made outside of the IEP team’s discussion of these participation criteria.”

Receives High-Quality Instruction. A few states (n = 3) specified the need for a student to receive high-quality instruction. Two of the states specified that instruction must be given by high-quality teachers. For example, Michigan’s guidelines stated, “instruction must be provided by a highly qualified teacher” and “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.”

Changes Since 2009

States’ AA-MAS participation criteria have changed since the previous update in 2009 (Lazarus et al., 2010). In 2010 more states were including many of the participation criteria tracked in previous reports (see Table A-5 in Appendix A). Other substantive changes in participation criteria included:

• 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” continued to increase substantially to 17 of 17 states (100%) in 2010, from 11 of 14 states (79%) in 2009.
• The number of states using the criterion, “learning grade-level content” increased to 16 of 17 (94%) states in 2010 from 11 of 14 states (79%) in 2009.
• The number of states using the criterion of previous performance on multiple measures increased to 16 of 17 states (94%) in 2010 from 12 of 14 states (85%) in 2009.
• States including the criterion, “IEP includes goals based on grade-level content standards” increased to 15 of 17 states (88%) in 2010 from 9 of 14 states (64%) in 2009.
• The number of states including the criterion, “receives specialized/individualized instruction,” increased to 13 of 17 states (76%) in 2010 from 7 of 14 states (50%) in 2009.
• States including “previous performance on state assessment” as a criterion increased to 12 of 17 states (71%) in 2010 from 6 of 14 states (41%) in 2009.
• The number of states requiring the criterion “cannot demonstrate knowledge on regular assessment even with provision of accommodations” decreased to 7 of 17 states (41%) in 2010 from 8 of 14 states (57%) in 2009.
  

Top of page | Table of Contents

Discussion

Seventeen states had publicly available participation guidelines for an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS in November 2010, although as of February 2011, only four states had successfully completed the U.S. Department of Education’s peer review process.

Key findings from NCEO’s analysis of 2010 AA-MAS participation guidelines included:

• Seventeen states had publicly available participation guidelines in 2010. This was an increase of three states from 2009 (i.e., four new states had guidelines this year—and one state dropped plans to develop an AA-MAS).
• All 17 states had text-based descriptions of participation guidelines. Some states included flow charts or check lists in addition to written description. One state posted an interactive flowchart, which was not identified in the previous report (Lazarus et al., 2010).
• More than half of the states allowed combination participation across the regular assessment and AA-MAS. Fewer states allowed combination participation without specification, or allowed combination participation across all three assessments (AA-AAS, AA-MAS, regular assessment).
• All states required that the student have a current IEP, and that the student must not be progressing at the rate expected to reach grade-level proficiency within the school year.
• Over two-thirds of states included the following criteria: learning grade-level content, previous performance on multiple measures, IEP includes goals based on grade-level content standards, receives specialized/individualized instruction, and previous performance on state assessment.
• States were also more likely to require IEP teams to consider a student’s previous performance on state assessments. Seventy one percent of the states included this criterion in 2010, while less than half of all states (41%) included it in 2009. Another criterion, “receives specialized/individualized instruction,” increased to 76% in 2010 from 50% in 2009.

This year states were more likely to provide other formats for participation guidelines. For example, more states provided case studies to help IEP teams make appropriate decisions about student eligibility for this assessment option. New also this year was the inclusion of glossaries, which defined key terms within participation guidelines of several states. However, the proportion of states providing flow charts (41%) and check lists (41%) was similar to the previous report (50% and 43%, respectively; Lazarus et al., 2010).

Although we did not include the training materials as a data source in our analyses, in the process of compiling data we found numerous training materials related to AA-MAS on state Web sites. A few states’ training materials even included videos. Videos and other training materials may help IEP team members better understand and use AA-MAS participation guidelines. However, we noticed that information about the participation guidelines in the training materials differed from what was in the actual guidelines in several states. In developing training materials, states need to ensure that the information presented is consistent with state policy.

According to the federal regulations, students who participate in a AA-MAS may not be prevented from attempting to complete the requirements for a regular high school diploma (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). In 2010 more states required IEP teams to consider implications for graduation in determining eligibility. The percentage of states requiring this consideration increased to 71% in 2010 from 57% in 2009. Because more states are requiring IEP teams to consider implications for graduation, states’ guidelines may be more consistent with the federal guidelines than in the past.

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. However, the number of states that have successfully completed the federal peer review process has increased since the publication of the previous update (Lazarus et al., 2010). In 2009-2010, only Texas had completed the process, whereas Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina and Texas had successfully completed the process by February 2011. It is likely that states’ AA-MAS participation guidelines will continue to change as states make decisions regarding AA-MAS.

We contacted all states—including states that we believed did not have an AA-MAS—during the verification process, to help ensure the compiled data were accurate and that we had not missed any states. Through the process of verification of data with states, we learned that some states had no plans to develop an AA-MAS either now or in the future. One state indicated that test development had been postponed due to cost issues, as well as unexpected results from a preliminary focus group study with students which indicated that from the students’ perspective modified items did not make a difference for them because they had not been exposed to that type of problem during instruction.

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 to best proceed. NCEO will track these changes as they develop.

Top of page | 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.

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.

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 from http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2007-2/040907a.pdf

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix A

Participation Guidelines Characteristics by State  

*See Table A-2 for additional information.

Table A-2. Other Formats for Participation Guidelines

Table A-3. Combination Participation

¹Michigan 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

Table A-5. AA-MAS Participation Criteria

Table A-6. Specifications and Descriptions of Participation Criteria

Top of page | Table of Contents

Appendix B

State Documents Used in Analysis

Table B.1: State Documents Used in Analysis of States’ Criteria for Participation in an Alternate Assessment based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards.

¹ The Assessment Flowchart for IEP Team Decisions and NDAA1 and NDAA2 Side-by-Side Comparison are separate documents but are also included in the North Dakota Alternate Assessment 2 2010-11 Test Directions Manual. 2 The Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-Modified (TAKS-M): Participation Requirements for TAKS-M, Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-Modified (TAKS-M): Descriptors for the Participation Requirements for TAKS-M, and Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills-Alternate (TAKS-ALT): Participation Requirements for TAKS-ALT are all separate documents but are also included in the ARD Committee Decision-Making Process for the Texas Assessment Program.

Appendix C

Compilation of States’ Participation Guidelines

Please refer to the PDF version of this document for Appendix C.

Top of page