Nearing the Target
in Disaggregated Subgroup Reporting to
the Public on 2004-2005 Assessment
Results
Technical Report 46
Gretchen R. VanGetson
• Martha L. Thurlow
April 2007
All rights reserved. Any or all
portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed
without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
VanGetson, G. R.,
& Thurlow, M. L. (2007). Nearing the target in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2004-2005 assessment results (Technical Report
46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Retrieved [today's date], from the
World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech46/
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Overview
Method
Results
Assessment
Participation in 2004-2005
Assessment
Performance in 2004-2005
Assessment
Performance: Trends
Other Information
Collected for 2004-2005
Discussion
References
Appendices
Executive Summary
This report marks the ninth analysis
conducted by the National Center on
Educational Outcomes (NCEO) of the
public reporting of state assessment
results for students with disabilities.
This is the fourth analysis that NCEO
has conducted since the passage of the
federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). Overall, all 50 states and 5
unique states reported some
disaggregated assessment results for
students with disabilities for the
2004-2005 school year. Thirty-six states
reported participation and performance
data for all their general assessments,
12 reported participation and
performance data for some of their
general assessments, and 2 reported only
performance data. When considering only
assessments that were part of states’
NCLB accountability systems, more states
reported all assessment data publicly:
44 states reported participation and
performance data for all these
assessments, 4 reported participation
and performance data for some of these
assessments, and 2 reported only
performance data for all of these
assessments. For alternate assessments,
47 states reported some disaggregated
assessment results for students with
disabilities. Forty-one states reported
both participation and performance data
for their alternate assessments, 2
states reported these data for some of
their alternate assessments, 3 states
reported only participation data, and 1
state reported only performance data for
their alternate assessments. Three
states did not report participation or
performance data about their alternate
assessment.
When reporting general assessment
participation data for students with
disabilities, 43 states reported the
number of students tested, the most
common way of reporting participation
information, while 35 states reported
either the percent of students tested or
not tested for at least one of their
assessments. For states’ alternate
assessments, the most common way of
reporting participation information was
to give the number of students tested;
this was the approach of 41 states.
Thirty-eight states gave a percentage
(either a percent tested or percent not
tested).
In terms of reporting general assessment
performance data, all 50 states reported
on the percent of students with
disabilities who were proficient, and 40
states reported the number of students
with disabilities in each achievement
level. For states’ alternate
assessments, 42 states reported on the
percent of students with disabilities
who were proficient, while 27 states
reported the number of students with
disabilities in each achievement level.
When we examined student performance on
general assessments, we found that
sizeable and variable gaps existed
between students with disabilities and
general education students. Gaps in the
percentage of participating students
reported as proficient tended to be
larger at higher grades; however,
meaningful comparison of these gaps
across grade levels is limited by
differences across grade levels in both
the composition of the compared
subgroups (Bielinski & Ysseldyke, 2000)
and by differences in the assessments
themselves at different grades. This
difference by grade level in the gap in
rate of proficiency was not present in
the alternate assessment performance
data. Percentages of students with
disabilities achieving proficiency on
the alternate assessment were typically
higher than on the general assessment.
In examining seven years of data from
states that had publicly reported
information using the same assessment
(11 states), we found that, in general,
there was a trend in both reading and
math toward higher rates of proficiency
among participating students with
disabilities.
Overall, this report reinforces what was
found in 2003-2004. States continue to
improve their public reporting
practices, especially for alternate
assessments, but it is gradual, and
there are still improvements to be made.
This report discusses the results of the
study and provides recommendations for
how states can continue to improve their
public reporting practices.
Overview
The end of the twentieth century saw
education shift toward holding all
students to high standards, and holding
all schools and school districts
accountable for students’ progress
toward those standards (Goertz & Duffy,
2003). For example, Title I of the
Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA)
of 1994 required states to create
assessment systems aligned with high
standards to measure student progress at
least once in elementary, middle, and
high school in both reading and
mathematics (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). Also
in 1994, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) required that
students with disabilities be included
in standards-based assessment systems,
answering a call from researchers that
stressed the importance of including all
students (McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner, &
Spiegel, 1992; Zlatos, 1994).
It was not until 2001, when ESEA was
reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB), that standards-based
assessment and accountability solidified
its presence in the educational
landscape. Under NCLB, by the 2005-2006
school year, any school accepting
federal dollars must demonstrate
adequate yearly progress in the number
of students meeting proficiency
standards in the areas of reading and
mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and
once between grades 10 and 12 (Peterson
& Young, 2004). The ultimate goal is to
have all students achieve proficiency by
2013-2014 (Goertz & Duffy, 2003).
Further, these results must be
disaggregated by student group (i.e.,
gender, disability, limited English
proficient, ethnicity, economic status,
migrant status); included in the state’s
accountability system; and publicly
reported in a clear, timely, and useful
manner (Peterson & Young, 2004). “Public
reporting is the most basic form of
accountability” (Goertz & Duffy, 2003,
p.6) in that it allows for public
knowledge of and school responsibility
for student achievement. Public
reporting of state assessment
participation and performance
information for students with
disabilities has been tracked by the
National Center on Educational Outcomes
(NCEO) since 1997.
Not surprisingly, since the passage of
NCLB, there has been an increase in the
number of states that publicly reported
participation and performance data for
all of their assessments; there was a
jump following implementation from 28 in
2000-2001 to 35 in 2001-2002. This
reporting hit a plateau in 2002-2003 and
2003-2004 (36 and 35 states reporting,
respectively) (Klein, Wiley, & Thurlow,
2006; Thurlow & Wiley, 2004; Thurlow,
Wiley, & Bielinski, 2003; Wiley,
Thurlow, & Klein, 2005). The number of
states that reported these data for all
of their alternate assessments has also
shown considerable improvement. For
example, while 22 states reported this
information in 2001-2002, 33 states
reported it in 2003-2004 (Klein et al.,
2006; Thurlow & Wiley, 2004).
The 2004-2005 school year was the third
year that states were required to report
on the performance of students with
disabilities on standards-based
assessments, and the last year before
states were required to test in all
grades 3 through 8, and once between
grades 10 and 12. This report marks the
ninth in a line of NCEO reports that
document state public reporting
practices, and pays particular attention
to present and upcoming federal
requirements in public reporting.
Additional analyses were conducted as
well, including an examination of
accommodations reporting, a look at
disaggregated student group reporting,
and a Web site analysis to determine the
accessibility of states’ public
reporting of participation and
performance data.
Method
We began our search for
information by reviewing every state’s
Department of Education Web site as well
as the Web sites for the 11 unique
states (i.e., American Samoa, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Commonwealth of Northern
Marianna Islands, Department of Defense
Education Activity, District of
Columbia, Federated States of
Micronesia, Guam, Palau, Puerto Rico,
Republic of the Marshall Islands, Virgin
Islands). We began collecting data in
October 2005 and collected information
for the 2004-2005 school year. We
recorded the names and other information
about the assessments that were
administered, documented whether
participation and performance
information were reported for students
with disabilities, and noted any other
subgroups that were included in
disaggregated reporting. We also
examined the way in which participation
and performance were reported, whether
participation and performance
information were reported for students
who took the test with accommodations,
and how many “clicks” it took to arrive
at disaggregated assessment results from
the Department of Education Web site
homepage. In our initial review, a
little over half of the states had
already posted their 2004-2005
assessment data online in a way that
made the data easy to locate and
understand.
On February 10, 2006 we
mailed a letter to each state director
of assessment (see Appendix A) outlining
our findings from the state’s Web site.
We asked directors to review our
findings, correct any misinformation,
and provide the public document or Web
page in which the correct information
was available. We asked that they send
us these changes by March 3, 2006. We
received replies via fax, e-mail,
letters, or phone calls. Many states
directed us to a Web page that we had
not found in our search. While a few
sent paper copies of information, we
were able to find this information on
state Web sites as well. A few states
gave us dates by which they expected
their disaggregated assessment results
to be posted. Overall, we received
responses from 22 directors of
assessment.
To ensure that our
findings were as accurate as possible,
we followed up these efforts with a
letter to each state’s director of
special education (see Appendix B).
These letters were mailed on March 24,
2006. The letters asked the directors to
review our findings and make any changes
by April 14, 2006. For the 17 states
from which we had already received a
response from the director of
assessment, we noted that in the letter
by stating that “these tables have been
verified by your state’s Assessment
Director; please notify me if you have
anything to add.” For states from which
we did not hear from the director of
assessment, we sent the same letter to
the director of special education as we
had sent to the director of assessment.
Of the 50 states and 11 unique states to
which we sent letters, 32 responded with
either corrections or to verify that the
information was correct.
Finally, there were
still 10 states and 7 unique states for
which we had heard back from neither the
director of assessment nor the director
of special education. For 9 of these
states we found information on students
with disabilities for all of their
general and alternate assessments. For
the remaining state, we reported all of
the information we could find on its Web
site. The unique states were not
included in the full analysis. Also, a
few states directed us to their Part B
State Performance Plan (SPP) for
information. The 2004 reauthorization of
the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA; PL 108-446)
required states to create a long-term
special education performance plan and:
Make the State’s
performance plan available through
public means, including by posting
on the website of the State
educational agency, distribution to
the media, and distribution through
public agencies. [Section
616©(ii)(I)]
Indicator number three
of Part B includes the participation and
performance of children with
disabilities on statewide assessments,
providing a form of reporting of these
data. In this report, data from SPPs are
provided only for states that
specifically asked us to review their
SPP.
Results
Characteristics of State Assessment
Systems
Appendix C lists all the
2004-2005 state mandated general
assessments that we identified for the
50 states and the 11 unique states. This
list includes the state, the name of the
test, the grades and content areas
tested, whether the state had publicly
available disaggregated participation
and performance data for students with
disabilities, and whether the assessment
results were used for state
accountability purposes. For the 50
states, we identified 97 different
statewide assessments and 107
assessments total. (Ten are repeat
assessments – three Terra Novas and
seven ITBSs.) Thirty-three states had
more than one general assessment. For
the 11 unique states, six different
assessments and eight total assessment
systems were found; only one of these
unique states gave more than one general
assessment.
Because few unique
states publicly reported complete
assessment data, the following results
include only information from the 50
regular states. Figure 1 breaks down the
107 testing systems by type:
norm-referenced tests (NRT),
criterion-referenced tests (CRT), exit
tests used as a gate for graduation or
earning a particular type of diploma
(EXIT), and hybrid tests that combined
standardized NRTs with additional
state-developed test items (NRT/CRT).
Exit exams were included in a separate
category only if the state had a
distinct test designed specifically for
high school completion requirements.
However, it should be noted that some
states’ CRTs or NRTs also include an
EXIT component.
Figure 1. Types of General Assessments
Criterion-referenced
tests (CRTs) comprised 63% of all the
assessments that states administered in
2004-2005. In fact, only seven states
(Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, and South
Dakota) did not administer a separate
CRT, though six of those states
administered a NRT/CRT hybrid test (only
Iowa administered solely an NRT).
Norm-referenced tests comprised 17% of
the assessments, exit exams comprised
13%, and 7% were a NRT/CRT hybrid. These
numbers are similar to the 2003-2004
assessment pattern in which 61% of the
assessments were CRTs, 16% were NRTs,
16% were exit exams, and 7% were hybrids
(Klein et al., 2006).
States
That Reported Disaggregated Regular
Assessment Data for Students with
Disabilities
Figure 2 summarizes the
different ways in which regular
assessment data were reported in all 50
states. Overall, 72% percent of states
reported disaggregated participation and
performance data for students with
disabilities for all their assessments,
4% percent reported performance data for
all assessments (but not participation
data), and 24% percent reported
participation and performance data for
some, but not all, of their assessments.
Figure 3 indicates how each of the 50
states reported their disaggregated
participation and performance data for
students with disabilities.
Figure 2. States that Disaggregated
Assessment Results for Students with
Disabilities
Figure 3. States that Reported 2004-2005
Disaggregated Regular Assessment Results
for Students with Disabilities
Figure 4 shows the
number of states that reported
participation and performance data for
the assessments that were included in
their statewide accountability systems.
In many states, only a subset of
assessments was part of their NCLB
accountability system. When we examined
just the NCLB assessments, we found that
44 states reported participation and
performance data for students with
disabilities on all of these
assessments. The states that reported
disaggregated data for their regular
accountability assessments did so
regardless of whether they had just one
assessment or multiple assessments
(i.e., 21 of the 44 had more than one
assessment included in their
accountability system), and regardless
of whether they tested in just a few
grades or in as many as 10 grades. Of
the four states that reported
participation and performance
information for some of their
accountability assessments, Mississippi,
Montana, and Utah were missing
participation data for at least one
test.
Figure 4. States that
Reported 2004-2005 Disaggregated Results
for Students with Disabilities in their
NCLB Accountability Systems
Unique
States That Reported Disaggregated
Assessment Data for Students with
Disabilities
This report is only the
second to include unique states in the
analysis of publicly reported data for
students with disabilities. Because many
of the unique states did not have
information that was found to be
publicly reported, we will only briefly
mention them here. Table 1 contains a
summary of the unique states and whether
they reported participation or
performance data for students with
disabilities. More detailed information
is included in Appendix C for general
assessments and Appendix D for alternate
assessments. Of the 11 unique states, 5
states publicly reported disaggregated
data on the participation and
performance of students with
disabilities on statewide assessments:
American Samoa, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, District of Columbia,
and Guam. For all of these unique
states, with the exception of Guam,
these data were gleaned from the SPPs.
Almost all of the unique
states administered an NRT, such as the
Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition
(District of Columbia) or 10th Edition
(American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, Guam). The
only unique state to administer a CRT
was the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands. In looking at the reporting
practices of the five unique states that
reported participation and performance
data for students with disabilities, all
reported the number and percent of
students with disabilities who
participated in statewide assessments.
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam all
reported both the number and percentage
of students with disabilities who were
proficient, while the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and the District of Columbia
reported only a percent. Further,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands, the District
of Columbia, and Guam all administered
an alternate assessment for students
with disabilities covering the same
content areas and grade levels as the
regular assessment.
Table 1. Unique States that Reported
Disaggregated Participation and
Performance Data for Students with
Disabilities
State
|
Regular Assessment
|
Alternate Assessment
|
Participation
|
Performance
|
Participation
|
Performance
|
American Samoa |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Bureau of Indian Affairs |
Yes |
Yes |
|
|
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Department of Defense
Education Activity |
No |
No |
|
|
District of Columbia |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Federated States of Micronesia |
No |
No |
|
|
Guam |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Palau |
No |
No |
|
|
Puerto Rico |
No |
No |
|
|
Republic of the Marshall
Islands |
No |
No |
|
|
Virgin Islands |
No |
No |
|
|
States
That Reported Disaggregated Alternate
Assessment Data for Students with
Disabilities
Appendix D lists all the
2004-2005 state mandated alternate
assessments that we identified. A total
of 47 states reported some data for
students with disabilities’
participation or performance on an
alternate assessment. There were a total
of 59 different alternate assessments
administered in 2004-2005; six states
administered more than one alternate
assessment. As shown in Figure 5,
results from our Web searches and
mailings revealed that 41 regular states
publicly reported both participation and
performance data at the state-level for
their alternate assessment. An
additional three states reported
participation only, one state reported
only performance data, and two states
reported some participation or
performance data. Three states (i.e., 6%
of all states) did not report any type
of information about their alternate
assessment. However, 80% of states did
report both participation and
performance for their alternate
assessment, which is an increase over
66% in the 2003-2004 school year. Figure
6 illustrates how each state reported
alternate assessment participation and
performance data.
Figure 5. States That Disaggregated
Alternate Assessment Results for
Students with Disabilities
Figure 6. States That Reported 2004-2005
Disaggregated Alternate Assessment
Results for Students with Disabilities
Assessment Participation in 2004-2005
General
Assessment Disaggregated Participation
Results for Students with Disabilities
Among the states
identified as providing participation
data for students with disabilities, the
way in which this information was
reported varied (see Appendix E). Figure
7 illustrates the number of assessments
with disaggregated participation data
and how those participation data were
reported. Information is presented in
terms of the number of assessments for
which participation data were available,
not in terms of the number of states.
For example, in Alabama there are four
assessments and each is counted
separately. We used this approach
because not all states report
participation in the same way across
assessments. For instance, one state
might report only a count of students
tested for one assessment, but for
another assessment it might report a
count tested, a percent tested, and a
percent not tested.
Figure 7. Participation Reporting
Approaches for General Assessments
Thirty-seven states (59
assessments total) reported either the
percent of students tested or the
percent not tested for at least one of
their assessments, which is a slight
increase from the thirty-four that
reported rates in 2003-2004. For 50 of
those assessments, the percent of
students tested was given, and for 30
assessments the percent of students not
tested was given. For 21 assessments,
both percent tested and percent not
tested were provided. Forty-three states
(73 assessments) provided the number of
students tested, making this the most
frequent way of reporting participation
data. Sixteen states (21 assessments)
provided the number of students not
tested. The number or percent of
students who were exempt or excluded
from assessments was given in seven
states (9 assessments) and the number or
percent of students absent was given in
12 states (18 assessments).
Figure 8 illustrates the
participation rates reported in those
states for which this information was
clearly reported. It is important that
states report the percentage of students
tested, in addition to just a count,
because this presents a more accurate
picture of how many students are
participating. To summarize
participation rate information, we
selected one grade, 8th grade, and one
subject, math, to portray in Figure 8.
This grade and subject area were chosen
to remain consistent with past years’
reports. In one state (Kansas) the math
assessment was administered in 7th
grade; that participation rate was used
here. However, not all states provided
data broken down in this way. Some
states provided math assessment
participation data but multiple grade
levels were aggregated; or a rate was
provided but it was a percent of all
students tested who were students with
disabilities, rather than a percent of
all students with disabilities who were
tested. Some states that otherwise
reported clear participation rates for
students with disabilities did not
administer a middle school level math
test. States which for any of these
reasons did not report clear
participation rates for the 8th grade
math test are not included in Figure 8.
During the 2004-2005 academic year,
participation rates ranged from 83% to
100%; 10 of the 20 states had
participation rates of 95% or higher.
Figure 8. Percentages of Students with
Disabilities Participating in Middle
School Regular Math Assessments in Those
States with Clear Reporting of
Participation Rates
Alternate Assessment Disaggregated
Participation Results for Students with
Disabilities
Figure 9 illustrates how
states reported participation for their
alternate assessments. Many more states
provided participation information this
year compared to the previous testing
year, 2003-2004, in which only 35 states
provided participation data. In
2004-2005, 46 states provided
participation information for some or
all of their alternate assessments, for
a total of 53 assessments. Appendix F
outlines in more detail the methods used
in reporting this information.
Figure 9. Participation Reporting
Approaches for Alternate Assessments
Similar to reporting for
the regular assessment, the most common
way of reporting participation
information for the alternate assessment
was to give the number of students
tested. This was done by 41 states on
their 46 alternate assessments and the
number of students not tested was
reported by 15 states on their 16
alternate assessments. Thirty-eight
states gave a percentage, which was
either the percent of students tested
(reported for 39 alternate assessments),
not tested (reported for 19 alternate
assessments), or both. Five states
provided the number or percent of
students who were exempt or excluded on
their five alternate assessments, and
seven states provided either the number
or percent of students who were absent
for their seven alternate assessments.
Thirty-eight states
provided a percentage of either students
tested or not tested. However, not all
of these states reported the data
clearly for each grade and content area,
either aggregating across grade or
content, or presenting the percent of
all students tested who were students
taking the alternate assessment. Figure
10 displays the participation rates for
students with disabilities for the 8th
grade math test in those states that
provided clear participation rates The
nine states shown provided information
on the percent of students with
disabilities who participated in the
alternate assessment out of all students
with disabilities. (Note: Washington’s
data were from a 7th grade assessment).
Figure 10. Percentages of Students with
Disabilities Assessed with the Alternate
Assessment out of the Total Number of
Students with Disabilities
Assessment Performance in 2004-2005
Regular
Assessment Performance Results
As with participation
data, the way in which states provided
performance data for students with
disabilities varied (see Appendix G).
Figure 11 illustrates the number of
assessments with disaggregated
performance data and how those
performance data were reported.
Information is again presented in terms
of the number of assessments for which
performance data were available, not in
terms of the number of states.
Figure 11. Performance Reporting
Approaches for Regular Assessments
All 50 states (88 assessments total)
reported a rate of proficiency, such as
percent of students with disabilities
who are proficient, which was also the
most common performance reporting
method. Reporting the percent of
students with disabilities in each
achievement level was the next most
common method, used by 40 states (70
assessments). The number proficient,
used by 20 states (31 assessments), and
number not proficient, used by 18 states
(25 assessments),were much less widely
used as a reporting method. The NRT
reporting methods, representing
percentile ranks rather than proficiency
status, were the least frequently used,
probably because only 7% of the state
assessments were NRTs.
For all states that
clearly disaggregated performance data
for students with disabilities, we
examined both the performance of general
education students and students with
disabilities. When examining performance
across states, it is important to
remember that state assessments are
different, in terms of both content and
proficiency levels. The assessments may
emphasize different standards and are
likely to differ in difficulty. In
addition, there is variability across
states in the percentage of students
with disabilities whose scores are
reported. Thus, it is not appropriate to
compare performance across states. It is
possible, however, to examine the
differences in percent of students with
and without disabilities achieving
proficiency within each state, although
it should be noted that this gap is also
affected by variability between the
participation rates of the two groups.
Clearly, comparisons of the gaps across
states are also inappropriate.
Performance results are
reported for both reading and math
assessments because these content
domains are the ones assessed by most
states and are the first content areas
required by NCLB to be assessed,
reported, and included in
accountability. We included English
language arts assessments as reading if
the state did not have a specific
reading assessment. All of the
assessments were CRTs except in Iowa,
which used an NRT. For 2004-2005, we do
not report performance on exit exams
because the distinct exit exams do not
include all of the exams used to hold
students accountable for graduation
requirements. Many of the other
graduation requirement exams are also
used for NCLB accountability
requirements, and we have reported
results along with the regular statewide
exams used for accountability.
We separated grade
levels into three categories: elementary
(3-5), middle (6-8), and high school
(9-12). For our summary, we chose to
present only one grade for each level.
When available, 4th grade was used to
represent the elementary level, 8th
grade to represent the middle school
level, and 10th grade to represent the
high school level. These grades were
chosen because they are the grades at
which the most states test students. If
data from those grades were not
available, the next grades used were 5,
7, and 11. The 3rd grade assessment was
used for Missouri’s elementary level
reading performance data. Additionally,
some of the high school assessments did
not specify grade level; these results
were included as 10th grade. (See
Appendix K for the actual grade used.)
Reading Performance.
Figures 12-14 present the reading
performance of students. The performance
of students with disabilities in reading
is generally much lower than the
performance of general education
students. At the elementary level, New
York had the largest difference in
percent proficient (49 percentage
points) between general education
students and students with disabilities.
At the middle school level, Alabama had
the largest difference in rates of
proficiency (58 percentage points). At
the high school level, the largest
difference in rate (45 percentage
points) was shown by Alabama. The states
with the smallest difference in percent
of students with and without
disabilities achieving proficiency were
Texas at the elementary level (11
percentage points), Nebraska and Texas
at the middle school level (23
percentage points), and Pennsylvania at
the high school level (16 percentage
points). In general, the reported gaps
in student proficiency rates are
variable with few evident patterns. One
evident pattern is that the gaps
increase with grade level. Such a trend
must be interpreted with caution, given
differences in composition of the two
compared groups across increasing grade
level (Bielinski & Ysseldyke, 2000).
Additionally, there are observably lower
proficiency rates in reading at the
middle school level than at elementary;
however, the assessments at different
grade levels may differ in terms of both
content and proficiency levels, making
comparisons of proficiency rate across
grades inappropriate.
Figure 12. Elementary School Reading
Performance on the Regular Assessment
Figure 13. Middle School Reading
Performance on the Regular Assessment
Figure 14. High School Reading
Performance on the Regular Assessment
Mathematics
Performance. Performance of general
education students and students with
disabilities on states’ 2004-2005
mathematics assessments is shown in
Figures 15-17. In general, the gaps in
proficiency rates between students with
disabilities and general education
students on math assessments were quite
similar to the gaps found for reading
assessments; they vary considerably from
state to state. In elementary grades,
the largest difference in the reported
percent of students achieving
proficiency was 45 percentage points in
Alabama. In middle school, the largest
difference was 51 percentage points,
shared by Alabama and Wisconsin; in high
school it was 60 percentage points in
Alabama. The states with the smallest
differences in percentage of students
with and without disabilities reported
as proficient were Texas at the
elementary level (10 percentage points),
Missouri at the middle school level (12
percentage points), and Missouri at the
high school level (17 percentage
points). As on the reading assessments,
the percent of students both with and
without disabilities who achieve
proficiency is observably lower at
middle school than an elementary;
interpretation of this trend is again
limited by differences in the assessment
used at different grade levels.
Figure 15. Elementary School Mathematics
Performance on the Regular Assessment
Figure 16. Middle School Mathematics
Performance on the Regular Assessment
Figure 17: High School Mathematics
Performance on the Regular Assessment
Alternate Assessment Performance Results
Figure 18 illustrates
the number of alternate assessments with
disaggregated performance data and how
those performance data were reported.
Information is again presented in terms
of the number of assessments for which
performance data were available, not in
terms of the number of states. Appendix
H provides details about the assessments
and reporting for each of the alternate
assessments.
Figure 18. Performance Reporting
Approaches for Alternate Assessments
(Number of Tests = 59)
Forty-two states (48
assessments) reported a rate of
proficiency—such as percent of students
with disabilities who are
proficient—which was also the most
common performance reporting method.
Reporting the percent of students with
disabilities in each achievement level
was the next most common method for 27
states (33 assessments). The number
proficient (20 assessments) and number
not proficient (17 assessments) were
much less widely used as a reporting
method. There were no NRT alternate
assessments.
We examined alternate
assessment performance data for all
states that clearly disaggregated (i.e.,
by grade level and content area) these
data for students with disabilities.
Figures representing reading and math
performance on the alternate assessment
are included in Appendix I. On average,
students with disabilities achieved
higher rates of proficiency on the
alternate assessment than on the general
assessment. On the alternate assessment,
there were no observable general
differences in rates of proficiency
across grade levels.
Assessment Performance: Trends
In an earlier analysis
(Thurlow et al., 2003), the performance
of students with disabilities for states
that had at least three years of
publicly reported data was examined. In
2000-2001, 13 states had publicly
reported information on their statewide
assessments for the past three years
(California, Delaware, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, Texas, Utah, and Washington) for
both math and reading. Colorado reported
three years of information only for the
reading assessment and Kansas reported
information only for the math
assessment. For the current period
ending with 2004-2005, 11 states have
seven years of publicly reported
information on their statewide
assessments (California, Colorado,
Delaware, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, and Washington). For Colorado,
full data for this period is available
for the reading assessment only, and for
Kansas for the math assessment only.
States included in the trend analysis
for 2000-2001 but excluded from the
current analysis were the following:
Texas and Maryland, which have since
changed their assessments and cannot be
included in the analysis; Minnesota,
which did not report performance
information in 2002-2003 (Wiley et al.,
2005); and Utah, which aggregated its
performance information across all
grades in 2003-2004 (Klein et al.,
2006).
Reading Tests.
Figures 19-21 show the percentage of
participating students with disabilities
who achieved proficiency on statewide
reading assessments at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels over the
past seven years. In general, the rate
of proficiency for participating
elementary school students with
disabilities continues to increase in
reading; 80% of the states included in
this analysis have shown such an
increase compared to the 2003-2004
school year and most of the states show
an overall trend toward greater rates of
proficiency for participating students.
A few states have spikes or drops in the
data across time (California,
Louisiana), which may reflect altering
assessments for NCLB. At the middle
school level, all of the states reported
a higher percentage of participating
students achieving proficiency than in
2003-2004. While there are evident
spikes in 2001-2002 for most states, and
other years in California and Louisiana,
several states show a trend across these
years of increasing rates of proficiency
among participating middle school
students with disabilities. At the high
school level, each of the three states
with complete data demonstrate a trend
across years toward higher rates of
proficiency among those participating.
Figure 19. Seven-Year Trends of the
Percentage of Elementary Students with
Disabilities who Achieved Proficiency on
Statewide Reading Exams
Figure 20. Seven-Year Trends of the
Percentage of Middle School Students
with Disabilities who Achieved
Proficiency on Statewide Reading Exams
Figure 21. Seven-Year Trends of the
Percentage of High School Students with
Disabilities who Achieved Proficiency on
Statewide Reading Exams
Math Tests. Figures 22-24 show
the percentage of participating students
with disabilities who achieved
proficiency on statewide assessments at
the elementary, middle, and high school
levels for math over the past seven
years. The math trends are similar to
the trends noticed in reading
performance. In general, it appears that
rates of proficiency for participating
elementary school students with
disabilities continue to increase in
reading: 90% of the states included in
this analysis report higher rates of
proficiency than in 2003-2004, and most
of the states show a trend across these
years of higher rates of proficiency for
participating students. Again, data from
some states show spikes or drops
(California, Delaware, and Louisiana)
that do not support a trend. At the
middle school level, 70% of the states
had a higher percentage of participating
students achieving proficiency than in
2003-2004, and most states show an
overall trend across these years of
increasing rates of proficiency among
participating students with
disabilities. At the high school level,
all four states with complete data show
an overall trend across years of
increasing rates of proficiency among
participants.
Figure 22. Seven-Year Trends of the
Percentage of Elementary Students with
Disabilities who Achieved Proficiency on
Statewide Mathematics Exams
Figure 23. Seven-Year Trends of the
Percentage of Middle School Students
with Disabilities who Achieved
Proficiency on Statewide Mathematics
Exams
Figure 24. Seven-Year Trends of the
Percentage of High School Students with
Disabilities who Achieved Proficiency on
Statewide Mathematics Exams
Other
Information Collected for 2004-2005
In our analysis of state
reporting for 2004-2005, we looked at
additional characteristics of states’
publicly reported information.
Specifically, we looked at information
available on accommodations used and how
states publicly reported disaggregated
student group assessment data. We also
conducted a “click” analysis to
determine the ease of access to
Web-based reporting.
Accommodations
Sixteen states provided
state-level information about students
who took the general assessment with an
accommodation. The same number of states
provided accommodations information in
2003-2004. In some cases, states
reported on standard accommodations
(those considered appropriate and not
ones that change the constructs measured
by the assessment). In other cases they
reported on nonstandard accommodations
(which generally were considered to
change the constructs measured—and might
be referred to as “non-allowed”
accommodations or
“modifications”—although IEP teams could
select them). Last, some states reported
on both or did not specify which.
Table 2 summarizes the information the
16 states provided. Appendix J contains
additional information about the data
provided by these states, with details
about the participation and performance
of students. Five states reported
student participation and performance by
specific accommodation (e.g., directions
read orally, braille, extended time),
and three states indicated that this
information was available in their SPP.
Table 2. States that Reported
State-Level Information about
Accommodations
State |
Terminology Used |
By Content/
Grade? |
Participation |
Performance |
Comments |
Colorado |
Specific Accommodations1
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Non-Approved Accomm/Mod
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
No |
|
Idaho |
Accommodation
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Reading only; Provides
information for Fall 2004 and
Winter 2005SWD
|
Adaptation
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
|
Indiana |
Accommodations
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Includes only “special ed”
|
Kansas2 |
Accommodations |
Yes/No |
No |
Yes |
Includes on IEP students
|
Kentucky |
Accommodations |
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
End of Primary and Gr 6 only
|
Louisiana |
”Calculator Used” |
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Only on ITBS |
Michigan |
Standard Accommodations
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Data broken down by All
students, Non sp ed students,
and spec ed students
& ALL
|
Non-Standard Accomm
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Mississippi |
Specific Accommodations1
|
No/No |
Yes |
No |
|
Missouri |
Accommodations
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
No |
|
Nebraska |
|
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
No |
ALL |
Nevada |
Not-Tested: Modified |
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
No |
ALL
|
New Mexico |
Specific Accommodations1 |
Yes/No |
No3 |
Yes |
Provides data for both SPED and
Non-SPED
|
North Carolina |
Specific Accommodations1 |
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
ALL
|
Oklahoma2 |
Accommodations |
Yes/No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Utah2 |
Accommodations |
Yes/No |
Yes |
Yes |
|
West Virginia |
Accommodations |
Yes/Yes |
Yes |
No |
SWD
|
1
Report by specific accommodation (e.g.,
Braille version, Scribe, Assistive
communication device, etc.).
2
From State Performance Plan.
3
Numbers are provided, but without a
denominator.
Assessment Data Disaggregated By Student
Group
In addition to the six
required reporting categories under
NCLB—ethnicity, gender, limited English
proficiency (LEP), migrant,
poverty/low-income, and special
education—some states provided
assessment data about other
disaggregated student groups. Figure 25
displays the number of states that
provided participation or performance
data for each disaggregated student
group. All 50 states reported on four of
the NCLB categories: ethnicity, LEP,
poverty, and special education. One
state did not report by gender, and six
states did not report by migrant status.
The most common other disaggregated
student groups on which states reported
assessment results were accommodations
(16 states), Title I (13 states), and
gifted and talented (12 states).
Figure 25. Number of States that
Provided Disaggregated Assessment Data
for Each Student Group
“Click” Analysis of Web-based Reporting
As we analyzed the
participation and performance reporting
on states’ Department of Education Web
sites, it became evident that some
states’ data were easier to find than
others. Because the Web is used to
provide publicly accessible assessment
data in most states, it is crucial that
these data be clear and easy to access;
we therefore examined the ease-of-access
to these data. It is important to note,
however, that because Web sites are
frequently updated, it is possible that
some of our findings no longer hold
true. It took an average of 3.4 mouse
clicks to navigate from the states’
Department of Education homepage to
actual data on students with
disabilities’ participation and
performance on state assessments.
Overall, we arrived at disaggregated
assessment data in three clicks or less
for 41 states. Figure 26 shows the
numbers of states in each “click”
category.
Figure 26. Number of States in Each
“Click” Category
Discussion
Overall, all 50 states
reported some disaggregated assessment
results for students with disabilities,
which was an increase from 48 in
2003-2004. Thirty-six states reported
participation and performance data for
all their general assessments, 12
reported participation and performance
data for some of their general
assessments, and 2 reported only
performance data. When considering only
assessments that were part of states’
NCLB accountability systems, more states
reported all assessment data publicly:
44 states reported participation and
performance data for all these
assessments, 4 reported participation
and performance data for some of these
assessments, and 2 reported only
performance data for all of these
assessments. There were no states that
failed to report some form of
disaggregated assessment data for
students with disabilities, which was an
improvement over two states that did not
report these data in 2003-2004. For
alternate assessments, 47 states
reported some disaggregated assessment
results for students with disabilities,
a large jump from 36 states in
2003-2004. Forty-one states reported
both participation and performance data
for their alternate assessments, 2
states reported these data for some of
their alternate assessments, 3 states
reported only participation data, and 1
state reported only performance data for
their alternate assessments. Three
states did not report participation or
performance data about their alternate
assessment, much fewer than the 14
states that did not do so in 2003-2004.
When reporting general
assessment participation data for
students with disabilities, 43 states
reported the number of students tested,
the most common way of reporting
participation information, while 35
states reported either the percent of
students tested or not tested for at
least one of their assessments. These
numbers did not differ significantly
from 2003-2004. However, there was
increase in alternate assessment
participation data reporting in
2004-2005. The most common way of
reporting participation information was
to give the number of students tested;
this was the approach of 41 states
compared to 32 states in 2003-2004.
Thirty-eight states gave a percentage
(either a percent tested or percent not
tested) compared to 20 in 2003-2004.
In terms of reporting
regular assessment performance data, all
50 states reported on the percent of
students with disabilities who were
proficient, and 40 states reported the
number of students with disabilities in
each achievement level. For states’
alternate assessments, 42 states
reported on the percent of students with
disabilities who were proficient, while
27 states reported the number of
students with disabilities in each
achievement level. When we examined
student performance on regular
assessments, we found that sizeable and
variable gaps existed between students
with disabilities and general education
students. Gaps in percentage of
participating students reported as
proficient tended to be larger at higher
grades; however, meaningful comparison
of these gaps across grade levels is
limited by differences across grade
levels in both the composition of the
compared subgroups (Bielinski &
Ysseldyke, 2000) and by differences in
the assessments themselves at different
grades. This difference by grade level
in the gap in rate of proficiency was
not present in the alternate assessment
performance data. Percentages of
students with disabilities achieving
proficiency on the alternate assessment
were typically higher than on the
general assessment. In examining seven
years of data from states that had
publicly reported information using the
same assessment (11 states), we found
that, in general, there was a trend in
both reading and math towards higher
rates of proficiency among participating
students with disabilities.
Recommendations for Reporting
With the push to provide
assessment results in a clear,
accessible, and timely manner, Web-based
reporting has clearly become the primary
vehicle for sharing data with the
public. Based on our analyses of
publicly reported assessment data,
especially disaggregated results for
students with disabilities, we make the
following recommendations:
-
Report results
clearly for each test, subject area,
and grade level. One of the most
common issues we encountered was
locating disaggregated assessment
data which was not disaggregated to
a level where it was useful. This
was especially true for states’
alternate assessments. For example,
one state provided disaggregated
assessment results for students with
disabilities for reading and math,
but the results were collapsed
across all grade levels. We could
not use these data in our analyses,
and we assume that these data were
of little use to educators, parents,
and other stakeholders as well. For
this report, we categorized the
assessment data as disaggregated if
the results for students with
disabilities were separated out in
any manner, but in future years the
results must be clearly
disaggregated not only by the
student group “students with
disabilities” but also by test,
subject, and grade level to be
considered fully disaggregated.
-
Report the
percentage of students tested in
each student group. Reporting a
percentage provides a more accurate
picture of participation in the
state assessment system than simply
reporting on the number of students
tested. However, for a group such as
students with disabilities with a
relatively small number of students,
using total grade level enrollment
as the denominator provides a very
small and less useful percentage.
States improve the utility of their
data when they provide a percentage
with the total subgroup grade level
enrollment as the denominator: the
percent of 3rd grade students with
disabilities tested out of the total
number of 3rd grade students with
disabilities, for example. Reporting
that 95% of students with
disabilities participated in the
state assessment system is more
useful than reporting that 6% of
students who participated in the
state assessment system were
students with disabilities.
-
Clearly report
proficiency levels. States vary
in their terminology for levels of
proficiency. Some states are very
clear as to which levels indicate
proficiency and which levels
indicate non-proficiency, while some
states use terminology that makes it
difficult to determine this
distinction. We recommend clearly
labeling each level as “proficient”
or “not proficient.” States could
add additional levels to this
dichotomous system (e.g., highly
proficient, well below proficient)
as long as the “proficient” and “not
proficient” distinctions are
obvious.
-
Report the number
and percent of students with
disabilities using accommodations.
This recommendation remains from
the 2003-2004 report as no progress
was noted in this area. Many
students with disabilities are not
able to take the general assessment
in the standard format, and thus are
provided with accommodations. Many
states consider the scores of some
of these accommodated assessments
either to not count or to count as
“not-proficient” because they are
non-standard accommodations. In some
states, the number of students
participating using non-standard
accommodations is quite high. If
these numbers are not reported, then
the picture painted of how all
students are doing will be
inaccurate. It is important to know
the extent to which students are
using accommodations, and
specifically those accommodations
that result in the removal of their
scores.
-
Clearly label
state assessment results on the
states’ Department of Education
home-page. To ensure easily
accessible Web-reported state
assessment data, states should have
a clearly labeled link to these data
from the states’ Department of
Education homepage. For example, the
link on the homepage could read
“2004-2005 State Assessment Results”
and lead to the assessment results
page, which in turn could have a
clear link to disaggregated
assessment results for students with
disabilities (e.g., “Assessment
Results for Students with
Disabilities”).
-
Report on all
statewide assessments. Some states
purposefully asked us not to include
certain non-accountability
assessments in our analysis.
Though this request may have been
made for a number of reasons, the
most obvious reason was that there
was little or no publicly reported
data for these assessments. We
recommend that states publicly
report all statewide assessment
data, whether or not the assessment
is part of the accountability
system. These data may be very
useful for educators,
administrators, parents, and
researchers, and should be readily
available.
References
Bielinski, J., &
Ysseldyke, J. (2000). Interpreting
trends in the performance of special
education students (Technical Report
27). Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Goertz, M., & Duffy, M.
(2003). Mapping the landscape of
high-stakes testing and accountability
programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1),
4-11.
Klein, J.A., Wiley, H.I.,
& Thurlow, M.L. (2006). Uneven
transparency: NCLB tests take precedence
in public assessment reporting for
students with disabilities
(Technical Report 43). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
McGrew, K.S., Thurlow,
M.L., Shriner, J.G., & Spiegel, A.N.
(1992). Inclusion of students with
disabilities in national and state data
collection programs (Technical
Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Petersen, G.J., & Young,
M.D. (2004). The No Child Left Behind
Act and its influence on current and
future district leaders. Journal of
Law and Education, 33(3), 343-363.
Thurlow, M. L., & Wiley,
H. I. (2004). Almost there in public
reporting of assessment results for
students with disabilities
(Technical Report 39). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M. L., Wiley,
H. I., & Bielinski, J. (2003). Going
public: What 2000-2001 reports tell us
about the performance of students with
disabilities (Technical Report 35).
Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Wiley, H. I., Thurlow,
M. L., & Klein, J. A. (2005). Steady
progress: State public reporting
practices for students with disabilities
after the first year of NCLB
(2002-2003). (Technical Report 40).
Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Zlatos, B (1994). Don’t
test, don’t tell: Is "academic
red-shirting" skewing the way we rank
our schools? The American School
Board Journal (181), 24-28.
Appendix A
Verification Letter to State Assessment
Director
The National Center
on Educational Outcomes is examining
states’ public reports on 2004-2005
school year assessment results. Our goal
is to (a) identify all components of
each state’s testing system, (b)
determine whether each state reports
disaggregated test results for
students with disabilities, (c) describe
the way participation and performance
information is presented, and (d)
describe how states report results for
students who took the test with
accommodations or modifications.
We have reviewed
your Web site for test information,
including both participation and
performance data on your statewide
assessments. Enclose are tables
highlighting our findings from that
review. A blank field indicates that we
did not find information in that area.
Please verify all included
information and provide us with
information that we could not find on
your Web site. Also, if there is
publicly reported information available
for your state, please provide us with
the public document and/or website that
contains the accurate information.
Address your responses to Gretchen
VanGetson at the above address or via
fax at (612) 624-0879.
If you have any
questions about our request, please call
Gretchen VanGetson at (612) 626-0658 or
email: vang0603@umn.edu. If we do not
hear from you by March 3, 2006,
we will assume there is no additional
publicly available information.
Thank you for
taking the time to provide this
information.
Sincerely,
Gretchen VanGetson
Graduate Research
Assistant
Martha Thurlow
Director
Table 1: Tests Administered and Results
Found
Please review
this table for its accuracy, make any
changes (if necessary), and fill in any
blank fields.
State |
Test |
Grades Tested |
Subject Areas |
Is Disaggregated Info for
Students with Disabilities
Reported (Yes/No) |
Is this test part of the state
accountability system? (Yes/No) |
AL |
|
Participation |
Performance |
|
Direct Assessment of Writing (DAW)
[CRT] |
5,7,10 |
Holistic Composition, Writing
Mechanics, Sentence Formation,
Grammar and Usage |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes |
Alabama High School Graduation Exam
(AHSGE) [EXIT] |
11,12 |
Reading, Language, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Stanford Achievement Test, 10th
ed. (SAT-10)
[NRT] |
3-8 |
Reading, Language, Math, Science
(5,7), Social Science (6) |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Alabama
Reading and Mathematics Test
(ARMT) [CRT] |
3-8 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Alabama Alternate Assessment
(AAA)
*AAS |
1-8, 10,11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
*AAS=based on alternate achievement
standards
*GLAS=based on grade level achievement
standards
*Other
Table 2: Participation Information
for Students with Disabilities
Please review
this table, which describes the way in
which participation data are publicly
reported in your state. A “Y” indicates
information is reported in this way.
Please add a “Y” if you know of any
other method of participation reporting,
and please provide us with the
information that is reported in that way
(either a hard copy or a Web-link).
State |
Test |
Number
Tested |
Number Not Tested |
Number Exempt |
Number Excluded |
% of students tested |
% of students not tested |
%
Exempt |
% Excluded |
Number and/or Percent Absent |
AL |
DAW |
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
AHSGE |
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
SAT-10 |
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
ARMT |
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
AAA |
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
Table 3: Performance Information for
Students with Disabilities
Please review
this table, which describes the way in
which performance data are publicly
reported in your state. A “Y” indicates
information is reported in this way.
Please add a “Y” if you know of any
other method of performance reporting,
and please provide us with the
information that is reported in that way
(either a hard copy or a Web-link).
State |
Test |
% in each achievement level |
% in each PR* group |
% proficient |
% not proficient |
Number proficient |
Number not proficient |
Avg. PR* |
AL |
DAW |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AHSGE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
SAT-10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
ARMT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AAA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
*=Percentile Rank
Table 4: Accommodations
We are
interested in examining if and how
states report information about students
who take assessments using
accommodations. Please change our
responses (if necessary) to reflect
information that is reported for your
state. If you do make changes, please
provide us with the information (either
a hard-copy or a Web-link).
Test |
Standard Administration |
Nonstandard Administration |
|
Participation |
Performance |
Participation |
Performance |
DAW |
No |
No |
No |
No |
AHSGE |
No |
No |
No |
No |
SAT-10 |
No |
No |
No |
No |
ARMT |
No |
No |
No |
No |
AAA |
No |
No |
No |
No |
If yes, complete Table 5
Table 5: Participation and
Performance for Students Tested with
Accommodations
Grade |
Subject |
Accommodation |
Participation |
Percent Proficient |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 1: Disaggregated Reporting
Groups by State
This figure
includes the different student groups
for which your state publicly reports
disaggregated data. Please change
our responses (if necessary) to reflect
information that is reported for your
state. If you do make changes, please
provide us with the information (either
a hard-copy or a Web-link).
YES
Special
Education or Disability
YES
Gender
YES
Ethnicity
YES
Migrant/Enrollment Mobility/Less than
One Year
YES
Limited
English Proficiency
YES
Poverty,
Low-Income, Economically Disadvantaged,
Free/Reduced Lunch
NO
Gifted
and Talented
NO
Accommodations
NO
Title I
NO
Neglected
or Delinquent
NO
Homeless
NO
Extended
School Services
NO
Parent
Education
NO
Section
504 Plan
NO
At-Risk/Targeted Assistance
NO
High
School Vocational/Career/Technology
Appendix B
Letters to State Directors of Special
Education
(Two
forms depending on input from Assessment
Director. Example here is if letter was
verified by the Assessment Director. If
no verification, letter was the same as
in Appendix A. Also, the table format is
the same as in Appendix A.)
The National Center on
Educational Outcomes is examining
states’ public reports on 2004-2005
school year assessment results. Our goal
is to (a) identify all components of
each state’s testing system, (b)
determine whether each state reports
disaggregated test results for
students with disabilities, (c) describe
the way participation and performance
information is presented, and (d)
describe how states report results for
students who took the test with
accommodations or modifications. We have
reviewed your state’s Web site for test
information, including both
participation and performance data on
your statewide assessments. Enclosed are
tables highlighting our findings from
that review. A blank field indicates
that we did not find information in that
area. These tables have been verified
by your state’s Assessment Director;
please notify me if you have anything to
add.
Please verify
all included information and provide us
with information that we could not find
on your Web site. Also, if there
is additional publicly reported
information available for your state,
please provide us with the public
document and/or Web site that contains
the accurate information. Address
your responses to Gretchen VanGetson at
the above address or via fax at (612)
624-0879.
If you have any
questions about our request, please call
Gretchen VanGetson at (612) 626-0658 or
email: vang0603@umn.edu. If we do not
hear from you by April 14, 2006,
we will assume there is no additional
publicly available information. Thank
you for taking the time to provide this
information.
Sincerely,
Gretchen VanGetson
Graduate Research Assistant
Martha Thurlow
Director
Appendix C
2004-2005 State
Assessment Systems and Status of
Disaggregated Data
State |
Assessment Component |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special
Education Data |
Test Used for State
Accountability Purposes |
Part |
Perf |
Alabama |
Direct Assessment of Writing
(DAW) [CRT] |
5,7,10 |
Holistic Composition,
Writing Mechanics, Sentence
Formation, Grammar and Usage |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Alabama High School
Graduation Exam (AHSGE)
[EXIT] |
11,12
|
Reading, Language, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Stanford Achievement Test,
10th ed. (SAT-10)
[NRT] |
3-8 |
Reading, Language, Math,
Science (5,7), Social
Studies (6) |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Alabama Reading and
Mathematics Test (ARMT)
[CRT] |
3-8 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Alaska |
Standards Based Assessment
(SBA) [CRT] |
3-9 |
Reading,
Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High School Graduation
Qualifying Exam (HSGQE)
[EXIT] |
10 |
Reading,
Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
TerraNova/CAT-6 [NRT] |
5,7 |
Reading,
Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
No |
No |
No |
Arizona |
TerraNova [NRT] |
2,9 |
Reading/Language Arts, Math |
No |
No |
No |
Arizona
Instrument to Measure
Standards (AIMS) [CRT/NRT] |
3-8 |
Reading,
Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
AIMS High School (AIMS HS)
[EXIT] |
10 (11,12) |
Reading,
Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Arkansas |
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills
(ITBS) [NRT] |
K-9 |
Reading Comprehension, Math,
Problem Solving |
No |
No |
No |
Arkansas Benchmark Exams
(including End-of-Course;
ABE) [CRT] |
3-8,9,11 |
Literacy (3-8,11), Math
(3-8), EOC–Algebra I (9),
EOC-Geometry (9)
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
California |
California
Standards Tests (CSTs) [CRT] |
2-11 |
English Language Arts, Math
(2-9), Science (5,8), Math
End-of-Course (8-11),
History-Social Science
(8,10,11), Science
End-of-Course (9-11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Spanish Assessment of Basic
Education (SABE/2) [NRT] |
2-11 |
Spanish Reading, Language,
Math, Spelling |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
California
Achievement Test, 6th
ed. (CAT-6) [NRT] |
3,7 |
Reading,
Language, Math, Spelling |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Colorado |
Colorado
Student Assessment Program (CSAP)
[CRT] |
3-10 |
Reading, Spanish Reading
(3,4), Math, Writing,
Spanish Writing (3,4),
Science (8) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Connecticut |
Connecticut
Mastery Test (CMT) [CRT] |
4,6,8 |
Reading,
Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Connecticut
Academic Performance Test
(CAPT) [CRT] |
10 |
Reading,
Math, Writing, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Delaware |
Delaware Student Testing
Program (DSTP) [NRT/CRT] |
2-11 |
Reading (2-10), Math (2-10),
Writing (2-10), Science
(4,6,8,11), Social Studies
(4,6,8,11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (for Reading, Writing,
and Math in grades 3-8 & 10) |
Florida |
Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test (FCAT),
includes SAT-9
[NRT/CRT] |
3-11 |
Reading
(3-10), Math (3-10), Writing
(4,8,10), Science (5,8,11)
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Georgia |
End of Course Tests (EOCT)
[CRT] |
9-12 |
English Literature and
Composition (9), American
Literature and Composition,
Algebra, Geometry, Biology,
Physical Science, US
History,
Economics/Business/Free
Enterprise |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Georgia High School
Graduation Test (GHSGT)
[EXIT] |
11 |
English/Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies,
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (ELA and Math only) |
Criterion-Referenced
Competency Tests (CRCT)
[CRT] |
1-8 |
Reading, English/Language
Arts, Math, Science (3-8),
Social Studies (3-8) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (Reading, ELA, and Math
only) |
Writing Assessment (WA)
[CRT] |
3,5,8,11 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Hawaii |
Hawaii
State Assessment (HSA) [CRT] |
3-8,10 |
Reading,
Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Idaho |
Idaho
Direct Assessments (DMA/DWA)
[CRT] |
4-9 |
Math (4,6,8), Writing
(5,7,9) |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Idaho
Standards Achievement Tests
(ISAT) [CRT] |
3-8, 10 |
Reading,
Language Usage, Math,
Science (5,7,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Idaho
Reading Indicator (IRI)
[CRT] |
K-3 |
Reading |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Illinois |
Illinois Standards
Achievement Test (ISAT)
[CRT] |
3,4,5,7,8 |
Reading (3,5,8), Math
(3,5,8), Science (4,7) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Prairie State Achievement
Exam (PSAE) [CRT] |
11 |
Reading, Math, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Illinois Measure of Annual
Growth in English (IMAGE)
[CRT] |
3,5,8,11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Indiana |
Indiana Statewide Testing
for Educational Progress (ISTEP+)
[NRT/CRT] |
3-9 |
English Language Arts, Math,
Science (5) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Graduation Qualifying Exam (GQE)
[EXIT] |
10 |
English Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Core 40 End-of-Course
Assessments (ECAs) [CRT] |
Various |
English 11, Algebra 1 |
No |
No |
No |
Iowa |
Iowa
Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa
Tests of Educational
Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT] |
3-12
(only report on grades
4,8,11) |
Reading,
Math, Science (8,11) |
Yes
|
Yesa |
Yes (Reading and Math only) |
Kansas |
Kansas Assessment System
(KAS) [CRT]
|
4-8, 10, 11 |
Reading (5,8,11), Math
(4,7,10), Science (4,7,10),
Social Studies (6,8,11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Kentucky |
Comprehensive Test of Basic
Skills, 5th ed. (CTBS/5)
[NRT] |
End of Primary, 6 |
Reading, Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Kentucky Core Content Test
(KCCT) [CRT] |
4,5,7,8,10, 11 |
Reading (4,7,10), Math
(5,8,11), Writing Portfolio
and On-Demand (4,7), Science
(4,7,11), Social Studies
(5,8,11), Arts & Humanities
(5,8), Practical Living &
Vocational Studies (5,8) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Louisiana |
Louisiana
Educational Assessment
Program (LEAP 21) [CRT] |
4,8 |
English, Math, Science,
Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Graduation Exit Exam (GEE
21) [EXIT] |
10, 11 |
English, Math, Science,
Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Iowa
Tests of Basic Skills/Iowa
Tests of Educational
Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT] |
3,5,6,7,8,9 |
Reading,
Language, Math, Science,
Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Maine |
Maine Educational Assessment
(MEA) [CRT] |
4,8,11 |
Reading, Math, Writing,
Science & Technology |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Maryland |
Maryland
School Assessment (MSA) [CRT]
|
3-8 |
Reading,
Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High School Assessment (HSA)
[CRT] |
9-12 |
English 2, Geometry, Biology,
Government, Algebra |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Massachusetts |
Massachusetts
Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS) [CRT] |
3-8,10 |
Reading
(3), English Language Arts
(4,7,10), Math (4,6,8,10),
Science/Technology (5,8) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Michigan |
Michigan
Educational Assessment
Program (MEAP) [CRT] |
4,5,7,8
|
Reading
(4,7), Math (4,8), Writing
(4,7), Science (5,8), Social
Studies (5,8), Listening
(4,7) |
Yes
|
Yes |
Yes |
Minnesota |
Minnesota
Comprehensive Assessment
(MCA) [CRT] |
3,5,7,10,11 |
Reading
(3,5,7,10), Math (3,5,7,11),
Writing (5,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Mississippi |
Mississippi Curriculum
Test (MCT) [CRT]
|
2-8 |
Reading, Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
TerraNova [NRT] |
6 |
Reading, Language, Math |
No |
Yes |
No |
Writing Assessment (WA)
[CRT] |
4,7 |
Writing |
No |
Yes |
No |
Subject Area Testing Program
(SATP) [CRT] |
9-12 |
Algebra I, US History,
Biology, English II |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Missouri |
Missouri Assessment Program
(MAP) (TerraNova survey)
[NRT/CRT] |
3,4,7,8,10, 11 |
Communication Arts (3,7,11),
Math (4,8,10), Science
(3,7,10), Social Studies
(4,8,11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (not science or social
studies) |
Montana |
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/
Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT] |
4,8,11 |
Reading,
Math, Language Arts,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Measured Progress (MP) [CRT] |
4,8,10 |
Reading,
Math |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Nebraska |
Nebraska
Statewide Writing Assessment
(NSWA) [CRT] |
4,8,11 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
School-based Teacher-led
Assessment and Reporting
System (STARS) [CRT] |
4,8,11 |
Math, Reading |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Nevada |
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/
Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITBS/ITED) [NRT]
|
4,7,10 |
Reading, Math, Science,
Language |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Nevada Criterion Referenced
Test (NCRT) [CRT] |
3,5,8 |
Reading, Math, Science (5,8) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High School Proficiency Exam
(HSPE) [EXIT] |
10-11 |
Reading, Math, Writing (11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Nevada Analytic Writing
Exanimation (NAWE) [CRT] |
4,8 |
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New Hampshire |
New Hampshire Educational
Improvement and Assessment
Program (NHEIAP) [CRT] |
3,6,10 |
Reading,
Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New Jersey |
New Jersey
Assessment of Skills and
Knowledge (NJ-ASK) [CRT] |
3,4 |
Language Arts Literacy,
Math, Science (4) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Grade Eight Proficiency
Assessment (GEPA) [CRT] |
8 |
Language Arts Literacy, Math,
Science |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High School Proficiency
Assessment (HSPA) [EXIT] |
11 |
Language Arts Literacy, Math,
Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New Mexico |
New Mexico
Standards Based Assessment (NMSBA)
[CRT] |
3-9 |
Reading/Writing, Math,
Science |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New Mexico
High School Standards
Assessment (NMHSSA) [EXIT] |
11 |
Reading/Writing, Math,
Science |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New York |
Regents Comprehensive Exams
(RCE) [EXIT] |
9-12 |
English, Foreign Languages,
Math, Global History &
Geography, US History &
Government, Living
Environment, Earth Science,
Chemistry, Physics |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (English and Math only) |
Regents Competency Test
(RCT) [EXIT] |
9-12 |
Reading,
Math, Science, Writing,
Global Studies, US Hist &
Gov’t |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (Reading, Math, and
Writing only) |
New York
State Assessment Program (NYSAP)
[CRT] |
3-8 |
English Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
North Carolina |
End-of-Grade (EOG)
[CRT]
|
3-8 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
End-of-Course (EOC)
[CRT] |
9-12 |
Biology, Chemistry, Physics,
English I, Physical Science,
Algebra I & II, Geometry |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Grade 3 Pretest [CRT] |
3 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
North Dakota
|
North Dakota
State Assessment (NDSA) [NRT/CRT] |
3-8,11 |
Reading/Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Ohio |
Achievement Tests (AT) [CRT] |
3-5,7,8 |
Reading
(3,4,5,8), Math (3,7,8),
Writing (4) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Ohio
Proficiency Tests (OPT)
[CRT] |
4,6 |
Reading
(6), Math (4,6), Writing
(6), Science (4,6),
Citizenship (4,6) |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Ohio
Graduation Tests (OGT)
[EXIT] |
10 |
Reading,
Writing, Math, Science,
Social Studies |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Oklahoma |
Oklahoma
Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT)
[CRT] |
3,4,5,7,8 |
Reading
(3,4,5,8), Math (3,4,5,8),
Science (5,8,), Social
Studies (5),
History/Government (8),
Geography (7) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
End-of-Instruction Tests (EOI)
[CRT] |
9-12 |
English II, U.S. History,
Algebra I, Biology I |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Oregon |
Oregon Statewide Assessment
(OSA) [CRT]
|
3,4,5,7,8,10
|
Reading/Literature
(3,5,8,10), Math (3,5,8,10),
Writing (4,7,10), Science
(5,8,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Pennsylvania |
Pennsylvania System of
School Assessment (PSSA)
[CRT] |
3,5,8,11 |
Reading, Math, Writing (11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (Reading and Math only) |
Rhode Island |
New Standards Reference
Examinations (NSRE) [CRT] |
11 |
English/Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Developmental Reading
Assessment (DRA) [CRT] |
K,1 |
Reading |
No |
No |
Yes |
South Carolina |
Palmetto Achievement
Challenge Tests (PACT) [CRT] |
3-8 |
English/Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High School Assessment
Program (HSAP) [EXIT] |
10 |
English/Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
South Dakota
|
Dakota STEP Test (STEP) [NRT/CRT] |
3-8, 11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Stanford Writing Assessment
(SWA) [NRT] |
5,9 |
Writing |
No |
No |
No |
Tennessee |
Tennessee
Comprehensive Assessment
Program Achievement Test (TCAP-AT)
[CRT] |
3-8 |
Reading/Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies
|
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Writing Test (WT) [CRT] |
5,8,11 |
Writing |
No |
No |
No |
TCAP Secondary Assessments (TCAP-SA)
[CRT] |
9-12 |
Algebra I, Biology, English
I & II, Math Foundations,
Physical Science, US HIstory |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Texas |
Texas
Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills (TAKS) [CRT] |
3-11
(Grade 11 Exit Exam)
|
Reading (3-9), Math, English
Language Arts (10,11),
Writing (4,7), Science
(5,10,11), Social Studies
(8,10,11); Spanish version
administered in grades 3-6.
|
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Reading Proficiency Tests in
English (RPTE) [CRT] |
3-12 |
English Reading Proficiency |
No |
No |
No |
Utah |
Iowa Tests of Basic Skills/
Iowa Tests of Educational
Development (ITBS/ITED)
[NRT] |
3,5,8,11 |
Reading, Language, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Core Criterion-Referenced
Tests (CCRT) [CRT] |
1-11 |
Language Arts, Math, Science
(4-11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Direct Writing Assessment
(DWA) [NRT] |
6,9 |
Writing |
No |
No |
No |
Utah Basic Skills Competency
Test (UBSCT) [EXIT] |
10 (11 and 12) |
Reading, Writing, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Vermont |
New Standards Reference Exam
(NSRE) [CRT] |
10 |
English/ Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Vermont Developmental
Reading Assessment (DRA)
[CRT] |
2 |
Reading |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Virginia |
Standards of Learning (SOL)
[CRT] |
3,5,8, High School |
English Language Arts, Math,
History/Social Science,
Science, Content Specific
History (high school) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Washington |
Washington Assessment of
Student Learning (WASL)
[CRT] |
4,5,7,8,10 |
Reading (4,7,10), Math
(4,7,10), Writing (4,7,10),
Science (5,8,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Iowa Tests of Basic
Skills/Iowa Tests of
Educational Development (ITBS/ITED)
[NRT] |
3,6,9 |
Reading, Math, Language (6),
Expression (9) |
No |
No |
No |
West Virginia |
West Virginia Educational
Standards Test (WESTEST)
[CRT] |
3-8 and 10 |
Reading/Language, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
West Virginia Writing
Assessment (WVWA) [CRT] |
4,7,10 |
Writing |
No |
No |
No |
ACT EXPLORE [NRT] |
8 |
English, Math, Reading,
Science |
No |
No |
No |
ACT PLAN [NRT] |
10 |
English, Math, Reading,
Science |
No |
No |
No |
Wisconsin |
Wisconsin Knowledge and
Concepts Exam (WKCE) [CRT] |
4,8,10 |
Reading, Language Arts,
Math, Science, Social
Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Wisconsin Reading
Comprehension Test (WRCT)
[CRT] |
3 |
Reading |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Wyoming |
Wyoming
Comprehensive Assessment
System (WyCAS) [CRT] |
4,8,11 |
Reading,
Writing, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
a Data are presented for 2003-04 and 2004-05 combined,
and not disaggregated in a way that they
can be reported for 2004-05 only.
Unique States
State |
Assessment Component |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special
Education Data |
Test Used for State
Accountability Purposes |
Part |
Perf |
American Samoa |
Stanford Achievement Test –
10th Edition
(SAT-10) [NRT] |
3-8,10,12 |
Complete battery |
Yes
|
Yes |
Yes |
Bureau of Indian Affairs |
Students take the assessment
of the state in which they
live |
|
|
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands |
Stanford Achievement Test-
10th Edition
(SAT-10) [NRT] |
3,5,6,8,9,11 |
Reading,
Math, Social Science,
Science |
Yes (Reading and Math)
|
Yes (Reading and Math) |
Yes |
Standards Based Assessment
(SBA) [CRT] |
3,4,7,8,10,
11 |
Reading
OR Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Department of Defense
Education Activity |
TerraNova [NRT] |
3-11 |
Reading, Language Arts,
Math, Science, Social
Studies |
No |
No |
Unknown |
District of Columbia |
Stanford Achievement Test- 9th
Edition (SAT-9) [NRT] |
1-12 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Federated States of Micronesia |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Guam |
Stanford Achievement Test-
10th Edition
(SAT-10) [NRT] |
1-12 |
Reading, Math, Language |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Palau |
Palau
Achievement Test [NRT] |
4,6,8,10 |
Reading,
Math |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Puerto Rico |
PPAA |
Unknown |
Unknown |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Republic of the Marshall
Islands |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Virgin Islands |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Appendix D
2004-2005 Alternate
Assessments
State |
Assessment Component |
Standards-Based* |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special Education
Data |
Test Used for State
Accountability Purposes |
Part. |
Perf. |
Alabama |
Alabama Alternate Assessment
(AAA) |
AAS |
1-8,10,11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Alaska |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
3-10 |
English/Language Arts, Math,
Skills for a Healthy Life |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
HSGQE Alternative Assessment
Program (AAP) |
AAS & GLAS |
10 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
No |
No |
No |
Arizona |
AIMS-Alternate (AIMS-A) |
AAS |
3-8 |
Reading, Math, Writing,
Listening, Speaking |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
AIMS-A HS |
AAS |
10 (11,12) |
Reading, Math, Writing,
Listening (Level 1), Speaking
(Level 1) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Alternate State Achievement Test
(ASAT) |
AAS |
2-9 |
Reading, Math, Writing,
Listening, Speaking |
No |
No |
No |
Arkansas |
Alternate Portfolio Assessment
System (APAS) |
AAS |
3-8,9,11 |
Literacy (3-8,11), Math (3-8),
EOC-Algebra 1 (9), EOC-Geometry
(9) |
No |
No |
Yes |
California |
California Alternate Performance
Assessment (CAPA) |
AAS |
2-11 |
English Language Arts, Math,
Science |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Colorado |
Colorado Student Assessment
Program Alternate (CSAPA) |
AAS |
3-10 |
Reading, Math (5-10), Writing,
Science (8) |
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Connecticut |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
3-8,10 |
Reading, Math, Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Delaware |
Delaware Alternate Portfolio
Assessment (DAPA) |
AAS |
2-11 |
Reading (2-10), Math (2-10),
Writing (2-10), Science
(4,6,8,11), Social Studies
(4,6,8,11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes (for Reading, Writing, and
Math in grades 3-8 & 10) |
Florida |
Florida Alternate Assessment
Report (FAAR) |
AAS |
3-10 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Georgia
|
Georgia Alternate Assessment
(GAA) |
AAS |
K-12 |
Communication, Daily Living,
Motor, Cog./Functional
Academics, Social/ Emotional,
Community, Vocational,
Rec/Leisure |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Hawaii |
Alternate Assessment |
GLAS |
3-8,10 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Idaho
|
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
K-10 |
Reading, Language (2-10), Math
(2-10) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Illinois |
Illinois Alternate Assessment
(IAA) |
AAS |
3,4,5,7,8,11 |
Reading (3,5,8,11), Math
(3,5,8,11), Science (4,7,11) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Indiana |
Indiana Standards Tool for
Alternate Reporting (ISTAR) |
AAS |
3-10 |
English Language Arts, Math,
Functional Achievement |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Iowa |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
4,8,11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Kansas |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
3-8,10,11 |
Reading (3-8,11) Math (3-8,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Kentucky |
Alternate Portfolio Assessment |
GLAS |
4,5,7,8, 10,11 |
Reading (4,7,10), Math (5,8,11),
Writing Portfolio and On-Demand
(4,7), Science (4,7,11), Soc. St
(5,8,11), Arts & Humanities
(5,8), Practical Living & Voc
Studies (5,8,) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Louisiana |
Alternate Assessment Levels 1&2 |
AAS |
3-11 |
English, Math, Science, Social
Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Maine |
Personalized Alternate
Assessment Portfolios (PAAP) |
AAS |
4,8,11 |
English Language Arts (Reading &
Writing), Math, Science &
Technology |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Maryland |
Alternate Maryland School
Assessment (ALT-MSA) |
AAS |
3-8, 10 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Massachusetts |
MCAS Alternate Assessment
(MCAS-Alt) |
Other |
3-8, 10 |
Reading (3), English/Language
Arts (4,7,10), Math (4,6,8,10),
Science (5,8) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Michigan |
Alternate Assessment (MI-Access) |
AAS & GLAS |
4,7,8,11 |
5 Performance Expectations |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Minnesota |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS & GLAS |
3,5,7,10,11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Mississippi |
Alternate Assessment |
Other |
3-8 |
Math, Reading/ Language Arts |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Missouri |
MAP-Alternate |
AAS |
4,8,11 |
Communication Arts (11), Math
(4,8), |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Montana |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
4,8,11 (NRT) & 4,8,10 (CRT) |
NRT: Reading, Language Arts,
Math, Science, Social Studies
CRT: Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Nebraska |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
4,8,12 |
Math, Reading/Writing |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Nevada |
Skills and Competencies
Alternate Assessment of Nevada
(SCAAN) |
AAS |
3-12 |
Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New Hampshire |
Alternate Assessment (NH-Alt) |
AAS |
2-7,10 |
Reading, Writing, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New Jersey |
Alternate Proficiency Assessment
(APA) |
AAS |
3,4,8,11 |
Language Arts Literacy, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New Mexico |
Alternate Assessment
|
AAS |
3-9,11 |
Reading/Writing, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
New York |
New York State Alternate
Assessment (NYSSA) |
AAS |
4, 8, High School |
English Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
North Carolina |
North Carolina Alternate
Assessment Academic Inventory (NCAAAI)
for End-of-Grade |
AAS & GLAS |
3-8 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
North Carolina Alternate
Assessment Academic Inventory
(NCAAAI) for End-of-Course |
GLAS |
9-12 |
Biology, Chemistry, Physics,
English I, Physical Science,
Algebra I & II, Geometry |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
North Carolina Alternate
Assessment Portfolio (NCAAP) |
AAS |
3-8 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
North Dakota |
North Dakota
Alternate Assessment (NDALT) |
AAS |
3-8,11 |
Reading/Language, Math |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Ohio |
Alternate Assessment
|
AAS |
3-8, 10 |
Reading (3-6,8,10), Math
(3,4,6-8,10), Writing (4,10),
Science (10), Social Studies (10 |
No |
No |
Yes |
Oklahoma |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
All |
Portfolio of required subjects |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Oregon |
Extended Assessments (EA) |
GLAS |
3,4,5,7,8,10 |
Reading/Literature (3,5,8,10),
Writing (4,7,10), Math
(3,5,8,10), Science (5,8,10) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Pennsylvania |
Pennsylvania Alternate System of
Assessment (PASA) |
GLAS |
3,5,8,11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Rhode Island |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
3-5,8,11 |
English/Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
South Carolina |
PACT Alternate Assessment
(PACT-Alt) |
AAS |
3-8 |
English/Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
High School Assessment Program
Alternate Assessment (HSAP-Alt) |
AAS |
10 |
English/Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
South Dakota |
Statewide Team-Led Alternate
Assessment & Reporting System (STAARS) |
AAS & GLAS |
3-8, 11 |
Reading, Math |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
STAARS Writing |
AAS & GLAS |
5,9 |
Writing |
No |
No |
No |
Tennessee |
TCAP-Alt |
AAS |
3-12 |
Reading/Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Texas |
State-Developed Alternate
Assessment-II (SDAA-II)
|
AAS & Other |
3-10 |
Reading, Math, Writing, English
Language Arts |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Utah |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
1-12 |
Language Arts, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Vermont |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS & GLAS |
2,4,5,
8-11 |
Varies by type of assessment |
No |
No |
Yes |
Virginia |
Virginia Alternate Assessment
Program (VAAP) |
AAS |
3,5,8,11 |
English Language Arts, Math,
Science, History/Social Science,
Content Specific History (High
School) |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Virginia Grade Level Alternative
Assessment (VGLAA) |
GLAS |
3-8 |
Collection of Evidence |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Virginia Substitute Evaluation
Program (VSEP) |
AAS & GLAS |
High School |
Collection of Evidence |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Washington |
Washington Alternate Assessment
System (WAAS) |
AAS |
4,5,7,8, 10 |
Reading, Math, Writing, Science |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
West Virginia |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
3-8, 10 |
Reading/Language, Math, Science,
Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Wisconsin |
Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA) |
AAS |
4,8,10 |
Reading, Language Arts, Math,
Science, Social Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Wyoming |
WyCAS Alternate |
AAS |
4,8,11 |
Receptive Language, Expressive
Language, Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
*AAS
= based on alternate achievement
standards; GLAS = based on grade level
achievement standards; Other = may
include a combination of AAS and GLAS or
different form, such as an adaptive
assessment.
Unique States
State |
Assessment Component |
Standards-Based* |
Grades |
Subject |
Disaggregated Special
Education Data |
Test Used for State
Accountability Purposes |
Part. |
Perf. |
American Samoa |
Alternate Assessment |
AAS |
3-8,10,12 |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands |
Alternate Assessment
|
GLAS |
3-8,10,11 |
Reading
OR Math |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
District of Columbia |
Alternate Assessment
|
AAS |
1-12 |
Reading, Math |
No |
No |
Yes |
Guam |
Alternate Assessment
|
GLAS |
1-12 |
Reading, Math, Language |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
*AAS
= based on alternate achievement
standards; GLAS = based on grade level
achievement standards; Other
Appendix E
Disaggregated
Participation Information (Given for
State-Level Data)*
State |
Test |
Number of Students Tested |
Number of Students
Not Tested |
Percent of Students Tested |
Percent of Students Not Tested |
Number and/or Percent Exempt or
Excluded |
Number and/or Percent Absent |
AL |
DAW |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
AHSGE |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
SAT-10 |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
ARMT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
AK |
SBA |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
HSGQE |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
TerraNova |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AZ |
TerraNova |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AIMS |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
AIMS HS |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
AR |
ITBS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABE |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
CA |
CSTs |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
SABE/2 |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
CAT-6 |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
CO |
CSAP |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
CT |
CMT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
CAPT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
DE |
DSTP |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
FL |
FCAT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
GA |
EOCT |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
GHSGT |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
CRCT |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
WA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
HI |
HSA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
ID |
DMA/DWA |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
ISAT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
IRI |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
Y |
IL |
ISAT |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
PSAE |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
IMAGE |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
IN |
ISTEP+ |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
GQE |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
ECAs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
IA |
ITBS/ITED |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
KS |
KAS |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
KY |
CTBS/5 |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
KCCT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
LA |
LEAP 21 |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
GEE 21 |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
ITBS/ITED |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
ME |
MEA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
MD |
MSA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
HSA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
MA |
MCAS |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
MI |
MEAP |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
MN |
MCA |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
MS |
MCT |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
TerraNova |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SATP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
MO |
MAP |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
MT |
ITBS/ITED |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
MP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NE |
NSWA |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
STARS |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
NV |
ITBS/ITED |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
Y |
NCRT |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
Y |
HSPE |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
NAWE |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
Y |
NH |
NHEIAP |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
NJ |
NJ-ASK |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
GEPA |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
HSPA |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
NM |
NMSBA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
NMHSSA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
NY |
RCE |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
RCT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
NYSAP |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
NC |
EOG |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
EOC |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Grade 3 |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
ND |
NDSA |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
OH |
AT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OGT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK |
OCCT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
EOI |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
OR |
OSA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
PA |
PSSA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
RI |
NSRE |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
DRA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SC |
PACT |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
HSAP |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
SD |
STEP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
SWA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TN |
TCAP-AT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCAP-SA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TX |
TAKS |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
RPTE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UT |
ITBS/ITED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CCRT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
DWA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBSCT |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
VT |
NSRE |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
DRA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
VA |
SOL |
|
|
|
Y |
|
|
WA |
WASL |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Y |
ITBS/ITED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WV |
WESTEST |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
WVWA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACT E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACT P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
WI |
WKCE |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
WRCT |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
WY |
WyCAS |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
*Shaded cells indicate unclear (e.g.,
aggregated grade level or subject level)
reporting.
Appendix
F
Disaggregated Alternate Assessment
Participation Information (Given for
State-Level Data)*
State |
Test |
Number of Students Tested |
Number of Students
Not Tested |
Percent of Students Tested |
Percent of Students Not Tested |
Number and/or Percent Exempt or
Excluded |
Number and/or Percent Absent |
AL |
AAA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
AK |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
AAP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AZ |
AIMS-A |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
AIMS-A HS |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
ASAT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AR |
APAS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA |
CAPA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
CO |
CSAPA |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
CT |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
DE |
DAPA |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
FL |
FAAR |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
GA |
GAA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
HI |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
ID |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
IL |
IAA |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
IN |
ISTAR |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
IA |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
KS |
Alternate |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
KY |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
LA |
Alternate |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
ME |
PAAP |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
MD |
ALT-MSA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
MA |
MCAS-Alt |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
MI |
MI-Access |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
MN |
Alternate |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
MS |
Alternate |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
MO |
Alternate |
Y |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
MT |
Alternate |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
NE |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
NV |
SCAAN |
|
|
|
Y |
|
Y |
NH |
NH-Alt |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
NJ |
APA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
NM |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
NY |
NYSAA |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NC |
NCAAI-EOG |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
NCAAI-EOC |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
NCAAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
ND |
NDALT |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
OH |
Alternate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
OR |
EA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
PA |
PASA |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
RI |
Alternate |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
SC |
PACT-Alt |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
|
HSAP-Alt |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
|
SD |
STAARS |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
STAARS Writing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TN |
TCAP-Alt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TX |
SDAA-II |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
UT |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
VT |
Alternate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
VA |
VAAP |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
VGLASS |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
VSEP |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
WA |
WAAS |
Y |
|
|
Y |
|
|
WV |
Alternate |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
WI |
WAA |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
WY |
WyCAS-Alt |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
*Shaded cells indicate unclear (e.g., aggregated grade level
or subject level) reporting.
Appendix
G
Disaggregated Performance Information
(Given for State-Level Data)*
State |
Test |
Percent in Each Achievement
Level |
Percent in Each PR* Group |
Percent Proficient |
Percent Not Proficient |
Number Proficient |
Number Not Proficient |
Average Percentile Rank |
AL |
DAW |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AHSGE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
SAT-10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
ARMT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AK |
SBA |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
HSGQE |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
TerraNova |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AZ |
TerraNova |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AIMS |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AIMS HS |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AR |
ITBS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
CA |
CSTs |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
SABE/2 |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
CAT-6 |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
Y |
CO |
CSAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
CT |
CMT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
CAPT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
DE |
DSTP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
FL |
FCAT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
Y |
GA |
EOCT |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
GHSGT |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
CRCT |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
WA |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
HI |
HSA |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
ID |
DMA/DWA |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
ISAT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
IRI |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
IL |
ISAT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
PSAE |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
IMAGE |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
IN |
ISTEP+ |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
GQE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
ECAs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IA |
ITBS/ITED |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
KS |
KAS |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
KY |
CTBS/5 |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
KCCT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
LA |
LEAP 21 |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
GEE 21 |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
ITBS/ITED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
ME |
MEA |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MD |
MSA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
HSA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
MA |
MCAS |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MI |
MEAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
MN |
MCA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MS |
MCT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
TerraNova |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
WA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
SATP |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
MO |
MAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MT |
ITBS/ITED |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
MP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NE |
NSWA |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
STARS |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NV |
ITBS/ITED |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NCRT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
HSPE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NAWE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NH |
NHEIAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
NJ |
NJ-ASK |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
GEPA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
HSPA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NM |
NMSBA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NMHSSA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NY |
RCE |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
RCT |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
NYSAP |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
NC |
EOG |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
EOC |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
Grade 3 |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
ND |
NDSA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
OH |
AT |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
OPT |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
OGT |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
OK |
OCCT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
EOI |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
OR |
OSA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
PA |
PSSA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
RI |
NSRE |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
DRA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SC |
PACT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
HSAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
SD |
STEP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
SWA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TN |
TCAP-AT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
WT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TCAP-SA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
TX |
TAKS |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
RPTE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UT |
ITBS/ITED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Y |
CCRT |
|
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
DWA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UBSCT |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
VT |
NSRE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
DRA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
VA |
SOL |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
WA |
WASL |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
ITBS/ITED |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WV |
WESTEST |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
WVWA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACT E |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACT P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WI |
WKCE |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
WRCT |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
WY |
WyCAS |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
*Shaded cells indicate unclear (e.g., aggregated grade level or subject level) reporting.
Appendix H
Disaggregated
Alternate Assessment Performance
Information (Given for State-Level
Data)*
State |
Test |
Percent in Each Achievement
Level |
Percent in Each PR* Group |
Percent Proficient |
Percent Not Proficient |
Number Proficient |
Number Not Proficient |
Average Percentile Rank |
AL |
AAA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AK |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
AAP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AZ |
AIMS-A |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
AIMS-A HS |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
ASAT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AR |
APAS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CA |
CAPA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
CO |
CSAPA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
CT |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
DE |
DAPA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
FL |
FAAR |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
GA |
GAA |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
HI |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
ID |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
IL |
IAA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
IN |
ISTAR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IA |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
KS |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
KY |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
LA |
Alternate |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ME |
PAAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MD |
ALT-MSA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
MA |
MCAS-Alt |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MI |
MI-Access |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
MN |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MS |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
MO |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
MT |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NE |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NV |
SCAAN |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NH |
NH-Alt |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
NJ |
APA |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
NM |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NY |
NYSAA |
Y |
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
NC |
NCAAI-EOG |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NCAAI-EOC |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
NCAAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
ND |
NDALT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OH |
Alternate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
OR |
EA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
PA |
PASA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
RI |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
SC |
PACT-Alt |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
HSAP-Alt |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
SD |
STAARS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
STAARS Writing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TN |
TCAP-Alt |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
TX |
SDAA-II |
|
|
Y |
|
|
|
|
UT |
Alternate |
|
|
Y |
|
Y |
|
|
VT |
Alternate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VA |
VAAP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
VGLASS |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
VSEP |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
WA |
WAAS |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
WV |
Alternate |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
WI |
WAA |
Y |
|
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
WY |
WyCAS-Alt |
Y |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Shaded cells indicate unclear (e.g.,
aggregated grade level or subject level)
reporting.
Appendix I
Alternate Assessment
Performance
Elementary School Reading Performance on
the Alternate Assessment
Middle School Reading Performance on the
Alternate Assessment
High School Reading Performance on the
Alternate Assessment
Elementary School Mathematics
Performance on the Alternate Assessment
Middle School Mathematics Performance on
the Alternate Assessment
High School Mathematics Performance on
the Alternate Assessment
Appendix
J
Participation and Performance for
Students Tested with Accommodations
Grade |
Subject |
Accommodation |
Participation |
Proficiency |
Colorado:
CSAP “Accommodations”
|
3 |
Reading |
Braille version |
8 |
- |
Large-print version |
37 |
41% |
Teacher-read directions only |
1825 |
22% |
Scribe |
759 |
33% |
Signing |
14 |
- |
Assistive communication device |
7 |
58% |
Extended timing |
6516 |
53% |
4 |
Reading |
Braille version |
1 |
- |
Large-print version |
35 |
29% |
Teacher-read directions only |
2045 |
13% |
Scribe |
884 |
34% |
Signing |
19 |
11% |
Assistive communication device |
33 |
45% |
Extended/modified timing |
6270 |
40% |
5 |
Reading |
Braille version |
5 |
- |
Large-print version |
35 |
46% |
Teacher-read directions only |
1900 |
16% |
Scribe |
660 |
42% |
Signing |
11 |
- |
Assistive communication device |
45 |
58% |
Extended/modified timing |
6178 |
45% |
6 |
Reading |
Braille version |
4 |
- |
Large-print version |
21 |
24% |
Teacher-read directions only |
1625 |
14% |
Scribe |
440 |
37% |
Signing |
23 |
13% |
Assistive communication device |
69 |
57% |
Extended/modified timing |
4474 |
42% |
7 |
Reading |
Braille version |
3 |
- |
Large-print version |
25 |
44% |
Teacher-read directions only |
1468 |
6% |
Scribe |
349 |
31% |
Signing |
33 |
15% |
Assistive communication device |
71 |
42% |
Extended/modified timing |
2476 |
30% |
8 |
Reading |
Braille version |
6 |
- |
Large-print version |
11 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
1262 |
10% |
Scribe |
252 |
29% |
Signing |
29 |
17% |
Assistive communication device |
57 |
40% |
Extended/modified timing |
2333 |
28% |
9 |
Reading |
Braille version |
8 |
- |
Large-print version |
12 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
523 |
8% |
Scribe |
119 |
32% |
Signing |
21 |
0 |
Assistive communication device |
14 |
- |
Extended/modified timing |
1796 |
22% |
10 |
Reading |
Braille version |
8 |
- |
Large-print version |
10 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
373 |
8% |
Scribe |
97 |
26% |
Signing |
21 |
5% |
Assistive communication device |
7 |
- |
Extended/modified timing |
1351 |
22% |
3 |
Math |
Braille version |
6 |
- |
Large-print version |
27 |
48% |
Teacher-read directions only |
781 |
36% |
Use of manipulative |
29 |
17% |
Scribe |
414 |
45% |
Signing |
18 |
22% |
Assistive communication device |
0 |
- |
Extended timing |
2053 |
47% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
3824 |
33% |
4 |
Math |
Braille version |
2 |
- |
Large-print version |
28 |
43% |
Teacher-read directions only |
692 |
24% |
Use of manipulative |
21 |
14% |
Scribe |
502 |
43% |
Signing |
16 |
19% |
Assistive communication device |
8 |
- |
Extended timing |
2859 |
38% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
3089 |
25% |
5 |
Math |
Braille version |
3 |
- |
Large-print version |
27 |
37% |
Teacher-read directions only |
688 |
19% |
Use of manipulative |
8 |
- |
Scribe |
417 |
35% |
Signing |
12 |
- |
Assistive communication device |
10 |
- |
Extended timing |
3515 |
40% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
2629 |
20% |
6 |
Math |
Braille version |
2 |
- |
Large-print version |
21 |
24% |
Teacher-read directions only |
808 |
12% |
Use of manipulative |
7 |
- |
Scribe |
258 |
28% |
Signing |
27 |
22% |
Assistive communication device |
35 |
23% |
Extended timing |
1996 |
30% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
1930 |
11% |
7 |
Math |
Braille version |
2 |
- |
Large-print version |
20 |
15% |
Teacher-read directions only |
715 |
5% |
Use of manipulative |
5 |
- |
Scribe |
201 |
17% |
Signing |
25 |
8% |
Assistive communication device |
27 |
22% |
Extended timing |
1852 |
20% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
1306 |
4% |
8 |
Math |
Braille version |
5 |
- |
Large-print version |
9 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
560 |
6% |
Use of manipulative |
5 |
- |
Scribe |
157 |
17% |
Signing |
23 |
13% |
Assistive communication device |
22 |
27% |
Extended timing |
2023 |
24% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
1272 |
4% |
9 |
Math |
Braille version |
9 |
- |
Large-print version |
12 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
377 |
2% |
Use of manipulative |
12 |
- |
Scribe |
80 |
10% |
Signing |
20 |
0 |
Assistive communication device |
6 |
- |
Extended timing |
1827 |
14% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
461 |
2% |
10 |
Math |
Braille version |
7 |
- |
Large-print version |
10 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
230 |
3% |
Use of manipulative |
11 |
- |
Scribe |
69 |
6% |
Signing |
23 |
0 |
Assistive communication device |
4 |
- |
Extended timing |
1229 |
10% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
367 |
1% |
8 |
Science |
Braille version |
7 |
- |
Large-print version |
8 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
585 |
11% |
Scribe |
185 |
30% |
Signing |
23 |
9% |
Assistive communication device |
25 |
44% |
Extended timing |
1183 |
17% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
1310 |
6% |
3 |
Writing |
Braille version |
11 |
- |
Large-print version |
32 |
22% |
Teacher-read directions only |
985 |
15% |
Scribe |
895 |
30% |
Signing |
24 |
8% |
Assistive communication device |
19 |
37% |
Extended timing |
3013 |
35% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
3017 |
11% |
4 |
Writing |
Braille version |
1 |
- |
Large-print version |
31 |
19% |
Teacher-read directions only |
946 |
9% |
Scribe |
872 |
26% |
Signing |
12 |
- |
Assistive communication device |
47 |
36% |
Extended timing |
5231 |
34% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
2743 |
9% |
5 |
Writing |
Braille version |
4 |
- |
Large-print version |
30 |
33% |
Teacher-read directions only |
838 |
12% |
Scribe |
694 |
28% |
Signing |
7 |
- |
Assistive communication device |
71 |
32% |
Extended timing |
5079 |
38% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
2556 |
11% |
6 |
Writing |
Braille version |
4 |
- |
Large-print version |
20 |
10% |
Teacher-read directions only |
963 |
9% |
Scribe |
443 |
26% |
Signing |
25 |
8% |
Assistive communication device |
97 |
41% |
Extended timing |
2730 |
32% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
1999 |
9% |
7 |
Writing |
Braille version |
4 |
- |
Large-print version |
25 |
32% |
Teacher-read directions only |
920 |
5% |
Scribe |
356 |
21% |
Signing |
28 |
11% |
Assistive communication device |
92 |
32% |
Extended timing |
2006 |
26% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
1426 |
5% |
8 |
Writing |
Braille version |
7 |
- |
Large-print version |
7 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
828 |
5% |
Scribe |
254 |
17% |
Signing |
32 |
9% |
Assistive communication device |
73 |
30% |
Extended timing |
1882 |
23% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
1300 |
4% |
9 |
Writing |
Braille version |
7 |
- |
Large-print version |
11 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
460 |
4% |
Scribe |
136 |
18% |
Signing |
18 |
0 |
Assistive communication device |
18 |
39% |
Extended timing |
1653 |
13% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
414 |
4% |
10 |
Writing |
Braille version |
8 |
- |
Large-print version |
9 |
- |
Teacher-read directions only |
278 |
4% |
Scribe |
111 |
13% |
Signing |
20 |
0 |
Assistive communication device |
13 |
- |
Extended timing |
1198 |
11% |
Oral presentation of entire test |
337 |
3% |
Colorado: CSAP “Nonapproved Accommodation/Modification” |
3 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
3 |
- |
4 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
12 |
- |
5 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
14 |
- |
6 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
4 |
- |
7 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
5 |
- |
8 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
4 |
- |
9 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
3 |
- |
10 |
Reading |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
4 |
- |
3 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
0 |
- |
4 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
4 |
- |
5 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
2 |
- |
6 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
0 |
- |
7 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
1 |
- |
8 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
1 |
- |
9 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
12 |
- |
10 |
Math |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
1 |
- |
8 |
Science |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
7 |
- |
3 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
3 |
- |
4 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
13 |
- |
5 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
14 |
- |
6 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
5 |
- |
7 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
3 |
- |
8 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
3 |
- |
9 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
6 |
- |
10 |
Writing |
Nonapproved
Accommodation/Modification |
5 |
- |
Idaho: Accommodation for Reading
Assessment (IRI)1 |
Kindergarten |
Reading |
Accommodation: Fall 2004 |
111 |
23/44/32 |
Kindergarten |
Reading |
Adaptation: Fall 2004 |
20 |
0/25/75 |
First |
Reading |
Accommodation:
Fall 2004 |
132 |
48/28/24 |
First |
Reading |
Adaptation:
Fall 2004 |
7 |
29/0/71 |
Second |
Reading |
Accommodation:
Fall 2004 |
195 |
26/33/42 |
Second |
Reading |
Adaptation:
Fall 2004 |
14 |
14/36/50 |
Kindergarten |
Reading |
Accommodation: Winter 2005 |
167 |
22/43/36 |
Kindergarten |
Reading |
Adaptation: Winter 2005 |
10 |
20/20/60 |
First |
Reading |
Accommodation: Winter 2005 |
172 |
45/33/22 |
First |
Reading |
Adaptation: Winter 2005 |
7 |
14/29/57 |
Second |
Reading |
Accommodation: Winter 2005 |
265 |
17/28/54 |
Second |
Reading |
Adaptation: Winter 2005 |
28 |
25/25/50 |
Kindergarten |
Reading |
Accommodation: Spring 2005 |
170 |
44/28/28 |
Kindergarten |
Reading |
Adaptation: Spring 2005 |
9 |
44/22/33 |
First |
Reading |
Accommodation: Spring 2005 |
182 |
27/45/28 |
First |
Reading |
Adaptation: Spring 2005 |
8 |
25/50/25 |
Second |
Reading |
Accommodation: Spring 2005 |
332 |
20/30/49 |
Second |
Reading |
Adaptation: Spring 2005 |
17 |
6/24/71 |
Indiana: ISTEP+ (Grades 3-9) and GQE (Grade 10) “Special Ed with
Accommodations”2 |
3 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
5898 |
23% |
4 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
7063 |
23% |
5 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
7846 |
22% |
6 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
8693 |
21% |
7 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
9093 |
18% |
8 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
9230 |
19% |
9 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
8454 |
15% |
10 |
E/LA |
Accommodations |
8069 |
19% |
3 |
Math |
Accommodations |
5750 |
28% |
4 |
Math |
Accommodations |
6891 |
32% |
5 |
Math |
Accommodations |
7671 |
32% |
6 |
Math |
Accommodations |
8434 |
33% |
7 |
Math |
Accommodations |
8856 |
29% |
8 |
Math |
Accommodations |
9082 |
26% |
9 |
Math |
Accommodations |
8436 |
25% |
10 |
Math |
Accommodations |
8062 |
21% |
5 |
Science |
Accommodations |
7130 |
29% |
Kansas:
“Students with IEPs Taking the
Regular Assessment with
Accommodations”3
|
All |
Reading |
Accommodations |
12,089 |
19% |
All |
Math |
Accommodations |
12,089 |
27% |
Kentucky: KY Core Content Test “Students with Disabilities Tested With
Accommodations”2 |
4 |
Reading |
Accommodations |
5349 (11% of SWDs) |
539 (10%) |
7 |
Reading |
Accommodations |
5238 (10%) |
493 (9%) |
10 |
Reading |
Accommodations |
3755 (8%) |
458 (12%) |
5 |
Math |
Accommodations |
5666 (12%) |
540 (10%) |
8 |
Math |
Accommodations |
5022 (10%) |
500 (10%) |
11 |
Math |
Accommodations |
2,964 (7%) |
473 (16%) |
4 |
Science |
Accommodations |
5349 (11%) |
543 (10%) |
7 |
Science |
Accommodations |
5238 (10%) |
484 (9%) |
11 |
Science |
Accommodations |
2964 (7%) |
504 (17%) |
5 |
Soc. St. |
Accommodations |
5666 (12%) |
526 (9%) |
8 |
Soc. St. |
Accommodations |
5022 (10%) |
475 (9%) |
11 |
Soc. St. |
Accommodations |
2964 (7%) |
483 (16%) |
4 |
Writing Portfolio |
Accommodations |
5290 (11%) |
Proficiency levels report. |
4 |
Writing On Demand |
Accommodations |
5349 (11%) |
Proficiency levels report. |
7 |
Writing Portfolio |
Accommodations |
5166(10%) |
Proficiency levels report. |
7 |
Writing On Demand |
Accommodations |
5238 (10%) |
Proficiency levels report. |
5 |
A & H |
Accommodations |
5666 (12%) |
496 (9%) |
8 |
A & H |
Accommodations |
5022 (10%) |
467 (9%) |
5 |
PL/VS |
Accommodations |
5666(12%) |
496 (9%) |
8 |
PL/VS |
Accommodations |
5022 (10%) |
463 (9%) |
Kentucky:
CTBS/5 “Students with
Disabilities Tested With
Accommodations”4
|
End of Primary |
Reading |
Accommodations |
4309 (9%) |
NP = 39 |
6 |
Reading |
Accommodations |
4646 (9%) |
NP = 29 |
End of Primary |
Math |
Accommodations |
4309 (9%) |
NP = 35 |
6 |
Math |
Accommodations |
4646 (9%) |
NP = 22 |
End of Primary |
Language |
Accommodations |
4309 (9%) |
NP = 30 |
6 |
Language |
Accommodations |
4646 (9%) |
NP = 25 |
Louisiana: ITBS “All Students”4 |
3 |
Reading |
Calculator Used |
12226 |
NP=48 |
5 |
Reading |
Calculator Used |
21709 |
NP=52 |
6 |
Reading |
Calculator Used |
29723 |
NP=43 |
7 |
Reading |
Calculator Used |
34400 |
NP=45 |
8 |
Reading |
Calculator Used |
1411 |
NP=16 |
9 |
Reading |
Calculator Used |
30827 |
NP=49 |
3 |
Math |
Calculator Used |
12229 |
NP=52 |
5 |
Math |
Calculator Used |
21710 |
NP=60 |
6 |
Math |
Calculator Used |
29728 |
NP=51 |
7 |
Math |
Calculator Used |
34417 |
NP=53 |
8 |
Math |
Calculator Used |
1421 |
NP=21 |
9 |
Math |
Calculator Used |
30886 |
NP=58 |
3 |
Language |
Calculator Used |
12226 |
NP=60 |
5 |
Language |
Calculator Used |
21709 |
NP=67 |
6 |
Language |
Calculator Used |
29718 |
NP=56 |
7 |
Language |
Calculator Used |
34397 |
NP=57 |
8 |
Language |
Calculator Used |
1411 |
NP=23 |
9 |
Language |
Calculator Used |
30841 |
NP=56 |
3 |
Soc. St. |
Calculator Used |
12221 |
NP=55 |
5 |
Soc. St. |
Calculator Used |
21704 |
NP=56 |
6 |
Soc. St. |
Calculator Used |
29707 |
NP=50 |
7 |
Soc. St. |
Calculator Used |
34384 |
NP=51 |
8 |
Soc. St. |
Calculator Used |
1405 |
NP=19 |
9 |
Soc. St. |
Calculator Used |
30839 |
NP=51 |
3 |
Science |
Calculator Used |
12222 |
NP=50 |
5 |
Science |
Calculator Used |
21705 |
NP=60 |
6 |
Science |
Calculator Used |
29706 |
NP=49 |
7 |
Science |
Calculator Used |
34378 |
NP=51 |
8 |
Science |
Calculator Used |
1405 |
NP=19 |
9 |
Science |
Calculator Used |
30841 |
NP=54 |
Michigan: MEAP “All Students” |
4 |
Math |
Standard Accommodations |
7598 |
43% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
37 |
- |
4 |
Reading |
Standard Accommodations |
3255 |
45% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
60 |
- |
4 |
Writing |
Standard Accommodations |
3005 |
21% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
90 |
- |
4 |
Listening |
Standard Accommodations |
1471 |
54% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
27 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Non Special Education” |
4 |
Math |
Standard Accommodations |
2380 |
54% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
4 |
Reading |
Standard Accommodations |
869 |
48% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
14 |
- |
4 |
Writing |
Standard Accommodations |
774 |
28% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
65 |
- |
4 |
Listening |
Standard Accommodations |
264 |
52% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Special Education” |
4 |
Math |
Standard Accommodations |
5218 |
38% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
30 |
- |
4 |
Reading |
Standard Accommodations |
2386 |
44% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
46 |
- |
4 |
Writing |
Standard Accommodations |
2231 |
19% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
25 |
- |
4 |
Listening |
Standard Accommodations |
1207 |
54% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
21 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “All Students” |
5 |
Science |
Standard Accommodations |
9132 |
58% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
46 |
- |
5 |
Soc. St. |
Standard Accommodations |
8195 |
7% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
37 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Non Special Education” |
5 |
Science |
Standard Accommodations |
2079 |
60% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
5 |
Soc. St. |
Standard Accommodations |
1222 |
10% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Special Education” |
5 |
Science |
Standard Accommodations |
7053 |
58% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
41 |
- |
5 |
Soc. St. |
Standard Accommodations |
6973 |
7% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
32 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “All Students” |
7 |
Reading |
Standard Accommodations |
3031 |
35% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
30 |
- |
7 |
Writing |
Standard Accommodations |
2954 |
25% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
12 |
- |
7 |
Listening |
Standard Accommodations |
1298 |
27% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Non Special Education” |
7 |
Reading |
Standard Accommodations |
655 |
35% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
7 |
Writing |
Standard Accommodations |
650 |
32% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
7 |
Listening |
Standard Accommodations |
212 |
25% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Special Education” |
7 |
Reading |
Standard Accommodations |
2376 |
35% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
26 |
- |
7 |
Writing |
Standard Accommodations |
2304 |
23% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
7 |
Listening |
Standard Accommodations |
1086 |
27% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “All Students” |
8 |
Math |
Standard Accommodations |
6818 |
22% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
18 |
- |
8 |
Science |
Standard Accommodations |
7313 |
30% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
24 |
- |
8 |
Soc. St. |
Standard Accommodations |
7222 |
6% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
17 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Non Special Education” |
8 |
Math |
Standard Accommodations |
1195 |
34% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
8 |
Science |
Standard Accommodations |
1246 |
29% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
8 |
Soc. St. |
Standard Accommodations |
1252 |
10% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
<10 |
- |
Michigan: MEAP “Special Education” |
8 |
Math |
Standard Accommodations |
5623 |
19% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
14 |
- |
8 |
Science |
Standard Accommodations |
6067 |
31% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
15 |
- |
8 |
Soc. St. |
Standard Accommodations |
5970 |
5% |
Non-Standard Accommodations |
13 |
- |
Mississippi: Testing Accommodations used in 2004/2005 |
- |
- |
Read directions and items
(repeating & paraphrasing) |
12,899 (24.4%) |
- |
- |
- |
Administered in a small group
setting |
8454 (16.0%) |
- |
- |
- |
Read directions (repeating &
paraphrasing) |
6295 (11.9%) |
- |
- |
- |
Reminders to stay on task |
5026 (9.5%) |
- |
- |
- |
Administered by a familiar
teacher |
4515 (8.5%) |
- |
- |
- |
Allowing extra time to complete
test |
3405 (6.4%) |
- |
- |
- |
Use of allowable memory aids |
2585 (4.9%) |
- |
- |
- |
Administered in a familiar room |
2112 (4.0%) |
- |
- |
- |
Sitting at the front of the
class |
2112 (4.0%) |
- |
- |
- |
Facing the test administrator |
1573 (3.0%) |
- |
- |
- |
Read directions and items
(repeating; not paraphrasing) |
888 (1.7%) |
- |
- |
- |
Read directions and items (no
repeating or paraphrasing) |
495 (0.9%) |
- |
- |
- |
Highlighting |
415 (0.8%) |
- |
- |
- |
Read directions (repeating; not
paraphrasing) |
352 (0.6%) |
- |
- |
- |
Individual administration |
320 (0.6%) |
- |
- |
- |
Native Language Dictionary |
286 (0.5%) |
- |
- |
- |
Read directions (without
repeating or paraphrasing) |
275 (0.5%) |
- |
- |
- |
Scheduled rest breaks |
183 (0.3%) |
- |
- |
- |
Student dictates answers |
161 (0.3%) |
- |
- |
- |
Cues |
115 (0.2%) |
- |
Missouri: Subset of Students with Disabilities Who Took the Assessment with
Accommodations |
3 |
Math |
- |
0 |
- |
4 |
Math |
- |
7240 |
- |
5 |
Math |
- |
0 |
- |
6 |
Math |
- |
0 |
- |
7 |
Math |
- |
0 |
- |
8 |
Math |
- |
8770 |
- |
10 |
Math |
- |
6740 |
- |
3 |
Reading |
- |
6383 |
- |
4 |
Reading |
- |
0 |
- |
5 |
Reading |
- |
0 |
- |
6 |
Reading |
- |
0 |
- |
7 |
Reading |
- |
8740 |
- |
8 |
Reading |
- |
0 |
- |
11 |
Reading |
- |
5484 |
- |
Nebraska: Statewide Writing
Assessment “All Students” |
4 |
Writing |
Receiving Accommodations |
1487 (7.5%) |
- |
8 |
Writing |
Receiving Accommodations |
1331 (6.2%) |
- |
11 |
Writing |
Receiving Accommodations |
835 (4.2%) |
- |
Nebraska: Statewide Writing
Assessment “Special Education” |
4 |
Writing |
Receiving Accommodations |
1200 (37.5%) |
- |
8 |
Writing |
Receiving Accommodations |
1158 (39.5%) |
- |
11 |
Writing |
Receiving Accommodations |
715 (34.9%) |
- |
Nevada: Reasons for Students Not Tested: Modified: ITBS/ITED |
4 |
Language |
- |
8 |
- |
4 |
Math |
- |
4 |
- |
4 |
Reading |
- |
29 |
- |
4 |
Science |
- |
5 |
- |
7 |
Language |
- |
65 |
- |
7 |
Math |
- |
68 |
- |
7 |
Reading |
- |
89 |
- |
7 |
Science |
- |
65 |
- |
10 |
Language |
- |
23 |
- |
10 |
Math |
- |
25 |
- |
10 |
Reading |
- |
23 |
- |
10 |
Science |
- |
25 |
- |
Nevada: Reasons for Students Not Tested: Modified: CRT |
3 |
Math |
- |
23 |
- |
3 |
Reading |
- |
35 |
- |
5 |
Math |
- |
13 |
- |
5 |
Reading |
- |
46 |
- |
5 |
Science |
- |
0 |
- |
8 |
Math |
- |
33 |
- |
8 |
Reading |
- |
28 |
- |
8 |
Science |
- |
0 |
- |
Nevada: Reasons for Students Not Tested: Modified: NAWE |
4 |
Writing |
- |
24 |
- |
8 |
Writing |
- |
19 |
- |
New Mexico: NMSBA and NMHSSA Combined |
- |
Reading |
Timing/Scheduling: Non-SPED |
- |
587 (38%) |
- |
Reading |
Timing/Scheduling: SPED |
- |
144 (6%) |
- |
Reading |
Response: Non-SPED |
- |
34 (31%) |
- |
Reading |
Response: SPED |
- |
32 (18%) |
- |
Reading |
Response & Timing/Scheduling:
Non-SPED |
- |
6 (25%) |
- |
Reading |
Response & Timing/Scheduling:
SPED |
- |
13 (7%) |
- |
Reading |
Presentation: Non-SPED |
- |
875 (20%) |
- |
Reading |
Presentation: SPED |
- |
318 (6%) |
- |
Reading |
Presentation &
Timing/Scheduling: Non-SPED |
- |
231 (32%) |
- |
Reading |
Presentation &
Timing/Scheduling: SPED |
- |
137 (7%) |
- |
Reading |
Response & Presentation:
Non-SPED |
- |
94 (27%) |
- |
Reading |
Response & Presentation: SPED |
- |
71 (12%) |
- |
Reading |
Response, Presentation, &
Timing/Scheduling: Non-SPED |
- |
175 (27%) |
- |
Reading |
Response, Presentation, &
Timing/Scheduling: SPED |
- |
92 (7%) |
- |
Math |
Timing/Scheduling: Non-SPED |
- |
329 (24%) |
- |
Math |
Timing/Scheduling: SPED |
- |
36 (4%) |
- |
Math |
Response: Non-SPED |
- |
19 (37%) |
- |
Math |
Response: SPED |
- |
7 (12%) |
- |
Math |
Response & Timing/Scheduling:
Non-SPED |
- |
4 (16%) |
- |
Math |
Response & Timing/Scheduling:
SPED |
- |
3 (4%) |
- |
Math |
Presentation: Non-SPED |
- |
848 (14%) |
- |
Math |
Presentation: SPED |
- |
391 (4%) |
- |
Math |
Presentation &
Timing/Scheduling: Non-SPED |
- |
181 (22%) |
- |
Math |
Presentation &
Timing/Scheduling: SPED |
- |
110 (4%) |
- |
Math |
Response & Presentation:
Non-SPED |
- |
269 (16%) |
- |
Math |
Response & Presentation: SPED |
- |
94 (7%) |
- |
Math |
Response, Presentation, &
Timing/Scheduling: Non-SPED |
- |
117 (17%) |
- |
Math |
Response, Presentation, &
Timing/Scheduling: SPED |
- |
58 (4%) |
North Carolina: “Students with Accommodations” |
Grade 3 Pretest |
Reading |
Braille Edition |
19 |
74% |
Large Print Edition |
38 |
45% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
32 |
69% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
6 |
50% |
Cranmer Abacus |
4 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
59 |
32% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
13 |
39% |
Magnification Devices |
16 |
63% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
5121 |
36% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
6534 |
32% |
Keyboarding Devices |
1 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
2 |
- |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
2516 |
35% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
7645 |
38% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
7095 |
36% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
203 |
42% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
28 |
29% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
15 |
33% |
Grade 3 Pretest |
Math (participa-tion is an
estimate from the reading test) |
Braille Edition |
19 |
95% |
Large Print Edition |
38 |
63% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
32 |
72% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
6 |
67% |
Cranmer Abacus |
4 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
59 |
66% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
13 |
59% |
Magnification Devices |
16 |
69% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
5121 |
70% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
6534 |
71% |
|
|
Keyboarding Devices |
1 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
2 |
- |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
2516 |
69% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
7645 |
72% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
7095 |
71% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
203 |
79% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
28 |
41% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
15 |
53% |
End-of-Grade 3 |
Reading and Math |
Braille Edition |
5 |
40% |
Large Print Edition |
73 |
55% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
60 |
50% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
2 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
4 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
112 |
38% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
17 |
41% |
Magnification Devices |
24 |
63% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
9510 |
44% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
10,114 |
39% |
Keyboarding Devices |
2 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
8 |
63% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
5618 |
44% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
13,620 |
45% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
12,671 |
43% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
348 |
49% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
76 |
42% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
78 |
55% |
End-of-Grade 4 |
Reading and Math |
Braille Edition |
1 |
- |
Large Print Edition |
76 |
58% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
68 |
48% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
2 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
1 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
159 |
40% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
15 |
20% |
Magnification Devices |
28 |
61% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
9697 |
50% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
10,429 |
42% |
Keyboarding Devices |
3 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
10 |
50% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
6020 |
49% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
14,838 |
51% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
13,582 |
49% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
416 |
52% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
58 |
48% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
47 |
49% |
End-of-Grade 5 |
Reading and Math |
Braille Edition |
9 |
89% |
Large Print Edition |
85 |
83% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
55 |
69% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
8 |
88% |
Cranmer Abacus |
6 |
83% |
|
|
Dictation to Scribe |
120 |
50% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
31 |
52% |
Magnification Devices |
16 |
88% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
9301 |
57% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
9801 |
50% |
Keyboarding Devices |
2 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
8 |
75% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
5863 |
55% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
14,609 |
58% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
13,213 |
565 |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
401 |
55% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
48 |
47% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
62 |
66% |
End-of-Grade 6 |
Reading and Math |
Braille Edition |
3 |
- |
Large Print Edition |
69 |
73% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
42 |
56% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
3 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
3 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
96 |
50% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
17 |
29% |
Magnification Devices |
10 |
67% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
6431 |
46% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
8139 |
34% |
Keyboarding Devices |
5 |
40% |
Hospital/Home Testing |
31 |
45% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
3739 |
41% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
13,615 |
45% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
11,095 |
41% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
803 |
30% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
21 |
33% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
36 |
47% |
End-of-Grade 7 |
Reading and Math |
Braille Edition |
7 |
67% |
Large Print Edition |
64 |
70% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
33 |
58% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
4 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
3 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
82 |
39% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
23 |
22% |
Magnification Devices |
11 |
55% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
5280 |
45% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
7623 |
32% |
Keyboarding Devices |
5 |
60% |
Hospital/Home Testing |
37 |
54% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
3409 |
38% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
14,082 |
44% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
11,059 |
39% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
909 |
34% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
25 |
36% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
27 |
41% |
End-of-Grade 8 |
Reading and Math |
Braille Edition |
5 |
40% |
Large Print Edition |
64 |
50% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
36 |
51% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
4 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
5 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
58 |
47% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Tests |
30 |
43% |
Magnification Devices |
18 |
56% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
4381 |
44% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
7038 |
31% |
Keyboarding Devices |
5 |
20% |
Hospital/Home Testing |
52 |
40% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
2901 |
37% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
13,729 |
45% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
10,359 |
40% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
915 |
35% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
31 |
32% |
Accommodation Notification Form |
28 |
41% |
End-of-Course |
Algebra I |
Braille Edition |
8 |
75% |
Large Print Edition |
44 |
71% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
19 |
74% |
Keyboarding Devices |
10 |
30% |
Cranmer Abacus |
1 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
39 |
64% |
Magnification Devices |
9 |
67% |
Hospital/Home Testing |
29 |
55% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
16 |
81% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
7839 |
56% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
10 |
30% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
605 |
49% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
1566 |
63% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
560 |
59% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
16 |
81% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
3016 |
47% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
4 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
3 |
- |
End-of-Course |
Algebra II |
Braille Edition |
6 |
33% |
Large Print Edition |
20 |
75% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
8 |
88% |
Keyboarding Devices |
1 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
2 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
18 |
67% |
Magnification Devices |
5 |
20% |
Hospital/Home Testing |
13 |
62% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
19 |
63% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
1923 |
65% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
1 |
- |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
95 |
64% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
309 |
68% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
160 |
60% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
19 |
63% |
End-of-Course |
Algebra II |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
376 |
55% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
4 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
4 |
- |
End-of-Course |
Biology |
Braille Edition |
2 |
- |
Large Print Edition |
30 |
47% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
11 |
91% |
Keyboarding Devices |
8 |
38% |
Cranmer Abacus |
0 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
32 |
53% |
Magnification Devices |
3 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
26 |
46% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
15 |
20% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
5230 |
31% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
8 |
38% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
448 |
28% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
963 |
41% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
418 |
21% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
15 |
20% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
2691 |
21% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
1 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
7 |
29% |
|
Chemistry |
Braille Edition |
1 |
- |
Large Print Edition |
10 |
80% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
1 |
- |
Keyboarding Devices |
1 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
1 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
8 |
63% |
Magnification Devices |
1 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
4 |
- |
Testing in a Separate Room |
8 |
63% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
623 |
63% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
1 |
- |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
23 |
48% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
105 |
72% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
42 |
60% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
8 |
63% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
90 |
41% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
1 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
1 |
- |
End-of-Course |
English I |
Braille Edition |
8 |
75% |
Large Print Edition |
26 |
65% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
9 |
67% |
Keyboarding Devices |
16 |
38% |
Cranmer Abacus |
0 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
38 |
50% |
Magnification Devices |
6 |
67% |
Hospital/Home Testing |
48 |
35% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
0 |
- |
Scheduled Extended Time |
8,180 |
43% |
End-of-Course |
English I |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
16 |
38% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
883 |
39% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
1,753 |
52% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
858 |
31% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
0 |
- |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
2 |
- |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
1 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
21 |
24% |
End-of-Course |
Geometry |
Braille Edition |
4 |
- |
Large Print Edition |
22 |
55% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
12 |
42% |
Keyboarding Devices |
0 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
0 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
20 |
40% |
Magnification Devices |
4 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
9 |
44% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
7 |
14% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
2,376 |
48% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
0 |
- |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
131 |
44% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
399 |
54% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
189 |
52% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
7 |
14% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
590 |
36% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
1 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
1 |
- |
End-of-Course |
Physical Science |
Braille Edition |
2 |
- |
Large Print Edition |
25 |
40% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
8 |
25% |
Keyboarding Devices |
10 |
20% |
Cranmer Abacus |
0 |
- |
Dictation to Scribe |
24 |
46% |
Magnification Devices |
5 |
40% |
Hospital/Home Testing |
11 |
55% |
Testing in a Separate Room |
18 |
50% |
Scheduled Extended Time |
3,840 |
42% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
10 |
20% |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
324 |
41% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
778 |
45% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
289 |
38% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
18 |
50% |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
1,929 |
33% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
1 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
2 |
- |
End-of-Course |
Physics |
Braille Edition |
0 |
- |
Large Print Edition |
5 |
80% |
Assistive Technology Devices |
1 |
- |
Keyboarding Devices |
0 |
- |
Cranmer Abacus |
0 |
- |
End-of-Course |
Physics |
Dictation to Scribe |
3 |
- |
Magnification Devices |
1 |
- |
Hospital/Home Testing |
0 |
- |
Testing in a Separate Room |
0 |
- |
Scheduled Extended Time |
97 |
87% |
One Test Item Per Page Edition |
0 |
- |
Multiple Testing Sessions |
6 |
67% |
Marks Answers in Test Book |
22 |
82% |
Dictionary/Electronic Translator |
6 |
50% |
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test |
0 |
- |
Reads Test Aloud (in English) |
5 |
5% |
Braille Writer/Slate and Stylus |
0 |
- |
Accommodation Notification Form |
0 |
- |
|
|
Math |
With Accommodations |
23,403 (62.5%) |
5012 (13.4%) |
|
Reading |
With Accommodations |
23,403 (62.5%) |
4314 (11.5%) |
|
|
Math |
With Accommodations |
11,559 (32.5%) |
2904 (8.2%) |
End-of-Course |
Language Arts |
With Accommodations |
12,968 (36.5%) |
3054 (8.6%) |
|
|
Math |
- |
1577 |
- |
|
Math |
- |
1868 |
- |
|
Math |
- |
2170 |
- |
6 |
Math |
- |
2177 |
- |
7 |
Math |
- |
2202 |
- |
8 |
Math |
- |
2149 |
- |
10 |
Math |
- |
1485 |
- |
3 |
Reading |
- |
931 |
- |
4 |
Reading |
- |
1053 |
- |
5 |
Reading |
- |
1249 |
- |
6 |
Reading |
- |
1162 |
- |
7 |
Reading |
- |
1021 |
- |
8 |
Reading |
- |
924 |
- |
10 |
Reading |
- |
792 |
- |
1
##/##/## format indicates the percent in
each proficiency group (GL3/GL2/GL1)
2
Also reports on LEP and non-LEP with
accommodations
3
From the State Performance Plan
4
National Percentile Rank
Appendix K
Performance Data for
Reading and Math Assessments
State |
Subject |
Grade
|
Type of Test |
Test Name |
Alabama |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
ARMT |
Reading and Math |
11 |
EXIT |
High School Graduation Exam |
Alaska |
Reading and Math |
3,8 |
CRT |
SBA |
Reading and Math |
10 |
|
HSGQE |
Arizona |
Reading and Math |
3,8 |
CRT |
AIMS |
Reading and Math |
10 |
EXIT |
AIMS Exit |
Arkansas |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
Benchmark Exams |
California |
Reading and Math |
4,7 |
CRT |
Content Standard |
Colorado |
Reading |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
CSAP |
Math |
5,8,10 |
CRT |
CSAP |
Connecticut |
Reading and Math |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
CMT |
Delaware |
Reading and Math |
3,8,10 |
NRT/CRT |
DSTP |
Georgia |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
CRCT |
Reading and Math |
11 |
EXIT |
GHSGT |
Hawaii |
Reading and Math |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
HCPS II |
Idaho |
Reading and Math |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
ISAT (referenced in charts as
ID2) |
Illinois |
Reading and Math |
3,8 |
CRT |
ISAT |
Reading and Math |
11 |
CRT |
PSAE |
Indiana |
Reading and Math |
3,8 |
CRT |
ISTEP+ |
Reading and Math |
11 |
EXIT |
GQE |
Kansas |
Reading |
5,8,11 |
CRT |
KAS |
Math |
4,7,10 |
CRT |
KAS |
Kentucky |
Reading |
4,7 |
CRT |
KCCT |
Math |
5,8 |
CRT |
KCCT |
Louisiana |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
LEAP 21 |
Reading and Math |
10 |
EXIT |
GEE 21 |
Maine |
Reading and Math |
4,8,11 |
CRT |
MEA |
Maryland |
Reading and Math |
3,8,10 |
CRT |
MSA |
Reading and Math |
10 |
EXIT |
High School Assessment |
Massachusetts |
Reading |
4,7,10 |
CRT |
MCAS |
Math |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
MCAS |
Michigan |
Reading |
4,7 |
CRT |
MEAP |
Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
MEAP |
Minnesota |
Reading and Math |
3,7,10 |
CRT |
MCA |
Reading and Math |
8 |
EXIT |
BST |
Mississippi |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
MS Curriculum Test |
English and Algebra |
HS |
CRT |
Subject Area |
Missouri |
Reading |
3,7,11 |
CRT |
MAP |
Math |
4,8,10 |
|
MAP |
Nebraska |
Math |
4,8,11 |
|
Assess. of State Math Standards |
Nevada |
Reading and Math |
3 |
|
NV Criterion-Referenced Test |
Reading and Math |
10 |
EXIT |
Graduation Exam |
New Hampshire |
Reading and Math |
3,6,10 |
CRT |
NHEIAP |
New Jersey |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
ESPA; GEPA |
Reading and Math |
11 |
EXIT |
HSPA |
New Mexico |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
NMAAP |
Reading and Math |
10 |
EXIT |
NM High Sch. Competency Exam |
New York |
Reading and Math |
4,8 |
CRT |
NY State Assessment Program |
Reading and Math |
|
EXIT |
Regents Comprehensive Exams /
Regents Competency Test |
North Carolina |
Reading and Math |
3 |
CRT |
Grade 3 Pretest (referenced in
charts as NC2) |
Reading and Math |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
End of Grade (referenced in
charts as NC1) |
Reading and Math |
10 |
CRT |
End of Course (referenced in
charts as NC3) |
Reading and Math |
10 |
CRT |
High School Comprehensive Test
(referenced in charts as NC4) |
North Dakota |
Reading and Math |
4,8,12 |
CRT |
ND State Assessment |
Ohio |
Reading and Math |
4,6,10 |
CRT |
OH Proficiency Test (referenced
as OH1) |
Reading |
3 |
CRT |
Grade 3 Reading Test (referenced
as OH2) |
Reading and Math |
9 |
EXIT |
OH Proficiency Test |
Oklahoma |
Reading and Math |
5,8,HS |
CRT |
Core Content Test |
Pennsylvania |
Reading and Math |
5,8,11 |
CRT |
PSSA |
South Carolina |
Reading and Math |
10 |
EXIT |
High School Exit Exam |
Texas |
Reading and Math |
4, 8 |
CRT |
TAKS |
Utah |
Reading and Math |
10 |
EXIT |
TAKS-EXIT |
Reading |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
Core Criterion-Referenced Tests |
|
Math |
4,7 |
CRT |
Core Criterion-Referenced Tests |
Virginia |
Reading and Math |
3,8 |
CRT |
Standards of Learning |
Washington |
Reading and Math |
4,7,10 |
CRT |
WASL |
West Virginia |
Reading and Math |
EL,MS, HS |
CRT |
WESTTEST |
Wisconsin |
Reading and Math |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
WKCE |
Wyoming |
Reading and Math |
4,8,10 |
CRT |
WyCAS |
Top of page |