Technical Report 70

2012-13 Publicly Reported Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities and ELLs with Disabilities

Deb Albus, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Martha L. Thurlow

May 2015

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

Albus, D., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2015). 2012-13 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report 70). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.Acknowledgments

---

Executive Summary

This is the sixteenth report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) that analyzes how states publicly report online assessment data for students with disabilities in K-12 schools in the United States. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) require states to disaggregate participation and performance data at the state level. The ESEA flexibility waivers that many states received also require states to report data on assessments used for Title I accountability for the "all students" group as well as for all of the subgroups, including special education, as long as the number of students in a subgroup is equal to or above the minimum reporting number defined by the state.

This report presents information on publicly reported participation and performance data for the 50 regular states and the 11 unique states (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Education, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Department of Defense Education Activities, District of Columbia, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau, Puerto Rico, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands).

For the 2012-13 school year, 52 of the 61 regular and unique states reported participation and performance data for students with disabilities for all general and alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) that were used for Title I within the ESEA accountability system. Information about state assessments not used for Title I is also presented.

Information on public reporting for English Language Learners (ELLs) with disabilities is also included in this report. As in the previous year, only seven states reported both participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities for the general assessment. And again, more states (N=21) reported these same data for ELLs with disabilities on the AA-AAS.

A majority of states reported some participation and performance data by individual grade and test for students with disabilities, though a few only reported these data by merged grades or tests. Among regular and unique states for participation, 42 states reported number assessed and 38 states reported percent participating. For performance, 46 of the regular states and unique states reported student performance by achievement level, and 42 reported the percent proficient.

This report also includes an analysis of the ease of finding these publicly reported assessment data for students with disabilities on states' department of education websites. This involved counting the number of mouse clicks that it took to arrive at public reports for students with disabilities on the general assessment and AA-AAS. For 34 of the regular states it took 3-4 clicks to arrive at the general assessment data; 5 or more clicks were required for 15 states. For AA-AAS data, 30 regular states required 3-4 clicks; 5 or more clicks were required for 17 states.

Although states may make changes via waivers or other processes, the public reporting of data will continue to be an essential part of accountability systems. And, as states make transitions to new assessments based on College- and Career-Ready Standards, it will be important to continue to strive for clear reporting of student data. The following recommendations are offered to states for the public reporting of disaggregated data for students with disabilities:

1. Report participation and performance results for each assessment, content area, and grade level.
2. Clearly label preliminary and final data with dates posted.
3. Report participation with accommodations.
4. Report participation percentages, disaggregated by grade.
5. Make data accessible by attending carefully to the usability of formats, ease of finding information, and clarity of language.
6. Provide reports in a format that are user-friendly for the general public rather than relying on technical reports to be the sole type of public reporting for student data.

Top of Page | Table of Contents

---

Overview

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), states receiving funding, including unique states, are required to report Reading, Mathematics, and Science assessment data used for Title I accountability to the federal government for all students and student subgroups. They are also to report these for the general public. Types of public reports found online include school "report cards," state assessment reports, and customized reports on state education websites (Albus, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2014). Additionally, the ESEA flexibility waivers that many states received require states to report on their report cards, for the "all students" group and for all of the subgroups, including special education (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).

The purpose of this report is to analyze the extent to which states report data for students with disabilities "to the public with the same frequency and in the same detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children," as required by IDEA (Wiley, Thurlow, & Klein, 2005). It also describes how states report participation and performance data to the public, with additional analyses focusing on average performance gaps across years. The report also summarizes the extent that states report participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities and the ease of accessing public reporting reports.

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing public reporting for the special education subgroup since 1997. In 2012-13, the total number of regular and unique states reporting disaggregated participation and performance data online for students with disabilities was 52 states (Albus et al., 2014). This showed an increase of 3 states over 49 reported in the previous year for 2011-12. Before that, the number had been 45, thus showing a steady increase in the number of states reporting these data over recent years, though the number in some previous years (2007-08, 2008-08, and 2010-11) were near 45 states(Albus & Thurlow, 2013; Albus, Thurlow, & Bremer, 2009; Thurlow, Bremer, & Albus, 2011). Prior to 2006-07, starting in 2002-03, this count of states ranged between 35 states and 39 states (Albus, Thurlow, & Bremer, 2009; Klein, Wiley, & Thurlow, 2006; Thurlow, Bremer, & Albus, 2008; Thurlow & Wiley, 2004; Thurlow, Wiley, & Bielinski, 2003; Wiley, Thurlow, & Klein, 2005; VanGetson & Thurlow, 2007).

In 2011-12, the number of states that reported disaggregated participation and performance data for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) was 51 states. This was an increase from 48 states in 2010-11. The number reporting for the AA-AAS had been as low as 36 states in 2006-07 and 2007-08.

Top of Page | Table of Contents

---

Method

In January and February 2014, state department of education websites were searched for publicly available reports that disaggregated participation and performance data for students with disabilities for the 2012-13 school year (i.e., state assessment reports, state report cards, customized report generators, and other report formats).

States included in the search were the 50 "regular" states and the 11 "unique" states (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Education, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Department of Defense Education Activities, District of Columbia, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Palau, Puerto Rico, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands). Participation and performance data were collected, as well as information about how states reported those data. Data collection included all general and alternate assessments whether or not they were used for Title I, including those assessments designed for bilingual or English language learners (ELLs) that were either general or alternate assessments.

The information gathered about how states reported participation and performance data were then summarized into individual state summary tables for verification. Verification materials were sent to state assessment directors and state directors of special education in July 2014. Twenty-two regular states and no unique states responded to the verification requests. After the verification process was completed, the participation and performance data were analyzed as well as information on how states reported those data. Double checks of the data were completed for accuracy. See Appendix A for a sample email sent to the state directors and sample tables used in the verification process.

There are different types of assessments that states can give, each serving one or more purposes. For example, some are given for accountability, while others are for diploma or graduation purposes. Some assessments may serve dual purposes within a state. Although the data collected for this report included all state level administered assessments presented on state websites, this report focuses on how states publicly reported participation and performance data for students with disabilities on general assessments and AA-AAS. For this analysis the following terms are defined as follows.

General assessment: Any assessment intended for students without disabilities and most students with disabilities that is designed to measure content area performance for Title I accountability or for exit or diploma purposes. General assessments may include end-of-course assessments for states that have them.

Alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS): Any assessment intended for a very small percentage of students with disabilities who have the most significant cognitive disabilities to measure content area performance for Title I accountability, or for exit or diploma purposes. AA-AAS may include end-of-course assessments for states that have them.

This report also provides additional information on alternates based on other achievement standards such as modified achievement standards and grade level achievement standards. Detailed information is not provided about these assessments in this report.

Changes in federal policies for reporting to the U.S. Department of Education, as well as our own criteria, which narrowed after 2004-05, likely affected the changes in the numbers of states reporting on the general and AA-AAS assessments. APR data were not counted as publicly reported data after 2004-05 because these data were not necessarily reported with the same frequency and detail as public reporting for all students (see Thurlow et al., 2008).

Top of Page | Table of Contents

---

Results

Results are presented in five sections. The first section presents information about how participation and performance data for students with disabilities were reported by states for general and alternate assessments used for Title I accountabiity or not, and how these same data were reported for ELLs with disabilities. The second section describes the approaches states used to communicate participation data. The third section describes the approaches states used to report performance data for general assessments. The fourth section presents select general assessment performance data at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels for reading and mathematics, including information about average achievement gaps. The final section provides information about routes taken to locate data on state websites.

How States Reported Participation and Performance Data

General Assessment Data for Students with Disabilities

Figure 1 shows that 52 of the 61 states reported participation and performance for all general assessments used for Title I accountability for students with disabilities. Eighty-five percent of states reported participation and performance for all general assessments, 3% reported participation and performance for some general assessments, and 12% had no publicly reported data.

Figure 1. Extent of Reporting for Students with Disabilities on General Assessments Used for Title I [N=61]

Figure 2 portrays the participation and performance reporting for the general assessment by state. This map shows that nearly all states had full reporting of participation and performance for students with disabilities on the general assessment used for Title I accountability systems. For details, see Table B-1 in Appendix B.

Figure 2. States Reporting 2012-13 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on General State Assessments in ESEA Accountability System*

*Note: The figure does not include state APR data. A broad definition was used to determine whether a state reported data. States were included if they had any data reported for the assessment (regardless of whether it was across all grades, by grade range, or for specific grades).

States also reported participation and performance for students with disabilities on general assessments not used for Title I accountability. Figure 3 shows that of the 16 states that had general assessments not used for Title I, 6 states reported participation and performance data for all tests, 2 reported these data for some tests, and 8 states did not publicly report data. For 45 states, this was not applicable because all of their general assessments were used for Title I accountability.

Figure 3. Extent of Reporting for Students with Disabilities in General Assessments Not Used for Title I [N=61]

Figure 4 portrays the participation and performance reporting for general assessments not used for Title I by state. This map shows that only a few states publicly reported participation and performance for these assessments. For details, see Table B-2 in Appendix B.

 

Figure 4. States Reporting 2012-13 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on General Assessments Not Used for Title I Accountability*

* Note: States were included if they had any data reported for the assessment (regardless of whether it was across grades, by grade range, or for specific grades).

Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS) Data for Students with Disabilities

This section addresses the extent to which states reported participation and performance data for students with disabilities on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) used for Title I accountability. Figure 5 shows that 52 states reported data for the AA-AAS. This represents 85% of the states.

Figure 5. Extent of Reporting for Students with Disabilities on AA-AAS Used for Title I [N=61]

Figure 6 shows the states that reported participation and performance data for AA-AAS used for Title I accountability. The map shows that most states (N=52) publicly reported participation and performance for students with disabilities for these assessments. For details, see Table B-3 in Appendix.

Figure 6. States Reporting 2012-13 Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on AA-AAS* Used for Title I Accountability

*Note: The figure does not include state APR data. A broad definition was used to determine whether a state had data. States were included if they had any data reported for the assessment (regardless of whether it was across grades, by grade ranges, or for specific grades).

Assessment Data for English Language Learners with Disabilities

This section presents information on how states reported participation and performance data for ELLs with disabilities. Like their peers, most ELLs with disabilities take general assessments; a small percentage take an AA-AAS.

Figure 7 shows that 49 states did not report participation or performance for ELLs with disabilities on general assessments used for Title I. Only seven states reported both participation and performance data for all general assessments. This represents 11% of the states.

Figure 7. Extent of States Reporting Data for ELLs with Disabilities on General Assessments Used for Title I [N=61]

Figure 8 shows the states reporting participation and performance data for ELLs with disabilities on general assessments used for Title I. This map shows that only a few states publicly reported participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities. For example, seven states reported participation and performance for all general assessments for ELLs with disabilities. For details, see Table B-4 in Appendix B.

Figure 8. States Reporting 2012-13 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for ELLs with Disabilities on General Assessments Used for Title I Accountability

For regular assessments not used for Title I, 16 states with these assessments did not report data for ELLs with disabilities. Only 1 state reported both participation and performance data for this population (see Table B-5 in Appendix B for more details).

Figure 9 shows that 21 states, or 34% of states, reported data for participation and performance on AA-AAS for ELLs with disabilities. Three states reported performance only, and 37 states did not publicly report data for ELLs with disabilities who may have participated in an AA-AAS.

Figure 9. Extent of States Reporting for ELLs with Disabilities on AA-AAS Used for Title I [N=61]

Figure 10 shows the 21 states that reported participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities on the AA-AAS used for Title I. This map shows that the states that reported these data either reported both participation and performance or did not report any data. Only a few reported performance only for AA-AAS. For details, see Table B-6 in Appendix B.

Figure 10. States Reporting 2012-13 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for ELLs with Disabilities on AA-AAS Used for Title I Accountability

 

Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) Data for Students with Disabilities and ELLs with Disabilities

Alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) are an optional assessment used for Title I accountability that only some states offer. For students with disabilities, 12 of 13 states reported participation and performance data in 2012-13 for the grades in which they offered an AA-MAS (separately or merged with data for the regular assessment). For ELLs with disabilities, 5 states reported both participation and performance for all AA-MAS. For details, see Table B-7 in Appendix B.

Alternate Assessment Based on Grade Level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS) Data for Students with Disabilities and ELLs with Disabilities

According to publicly available data, one state had an Alternate Assessment based on Grade Level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS). That state reported participation and performance data for students with disabilities and for ELLs with disabilities. For details see Table B-8 in Appendix B.

Communicating Participation in 2012-13

States publicly reported participation rate data for students with disabilities in a variety of ways. Figure 11 shows that 39 of the regular and unique states reported these data. Seventeen reported by grade and test. Twenty-two states merged grades and tests when reporting the data. Sixteen states reported by grade but merged tests and another seven states reported by merging grades by test. Tests were merged in different ways by states (e.g., merging general and alternate assessments, merging general assessments, or both). Of the 39 states reporting these data, 21 states publicly reported data only one way, while others reported them in multiple ways. For additional details see Table B-9 in Appendix B.

Figure 11. Number of States Using Selected Methods to Report Participation Rate

States reported participation data for general assessments in several different ways. Figure 12 shows the approaches taken by the 54 states (of the total of 61 regular and unique states) that reported participation data. Forty-two states publicly reported the number of students tested and 38 states reported the percent of students participating in general assessments used for Title I accountability. Only six states reported the percent of students with no scores; thirteen states presented the number of students with no scores. Figure 12 includes data from states that used any method of reporting participation data (i.e., by grade and test, by merging grades and tests, by grade with tests merged, and by test with grades merged). For additional details see Table B-10 in Appendix B. For details about AA-AAS participation see Table 11 in Appendix B.

Figure 12. States Reporting Participation by Students with Disabilities for General Assessments in Title I Accountability Systems in 2012-13

Figure 13 shows the participation rates for grade 8 mathematics for those states with this information reported by grade and test. Of the 17 states that reported these data by grade and test, 10 states reported these data with denominators based on students with disabilities in grade 8. One of these states (Connecticut) had an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) and reported these data in a different way. For example, Connecticut showed a lower rate for its general mathematics assessment because a percentage of its students with disabilities took an AA-MAS, and because the denominator Connecticut used in calculating the percentage included both students participating in the general assessment and the AA-MAS. See Table B-12 Appendix B for a detailed summary of how states reported AA-MAS participation rates.

Figure 13. Percentages of Students with Disabilities Participating in Middle School General Math Assessments in Those States with Reported Participation Rates in 2012-13*

*One state included in this figure had an AA-MAS: Connecticut. Connecticut's rate here is lower because it was based on a denominator that summed participation for both the general and alternate assessments. A key for state abbreviations is provided in Table B-13 in Appendix B.

General Assessment Performance Approaches for Students with Disabilities

Similar to the reporting practices for participation data, states reported performance in several different ways. Figure 14 shows that of 54 states, of the total 61 regular and unique states, that reported these data, 40 states reported some performance data by grade and test. Twenty-seven states reported performance by merging grades and merging tests. Twenty-three states reported data merging tests for one or more grades, and thirteen states did so merging grades for one or more tests. Of the states in Figure 14, 20 states publicly reported performance data only one way, while others reported it in multiple ways. For additional details see Table B-14 in Appendix B.

Figure 14. Number of States Using Selected Methods to Report Performance Data

States also report performance data in a variety of ways, such as the number or percent in each achievement level, percent proficient or not proficient, and scaled scores. Figure 15 shows that the most common way that states reported performance data was by percent in each achievement level (n=46). The next most frequent way was by percent proficient. This figure includes data from states that used any method of reporting participation data (i.e., by grade and test, by merging grades and tests, by grade with tests merged, and by test with grades merged). For additional details see Table B-15 in Appendix B. For details about AA-AAS performance see Table B-16 in the Appendix.

Figure 15. General Assessments within ESEA: Number of States Reporting Performance Categories for Students with Disabilities in 2012-13

Selected Results of General Assessment Performance for Students with Disabilities

In this section the performance of students with and without IEPs is compared for states that reported data for each of three representative grades (e.g., Grade 4, Grade 8, and Grade 10) by content area (i.e., reading, mathematics). Figures 16 to 21 show the gaps between students with disabilities and their comparison peer group. The solid line represents the gap between students with Individualized Educational Programs (IEPs) and the comparison group. The comparison peer group varied by state, with some states reporting the performance of students without IEPs and others reporting the total student population. Because the gaps were affected by whether a state included all students or students without disabilities, we indicate the group used by each state on the horizontal axis with an A if the state included all students and an O if the comparison group for the state was students who do not have IEPs. The students without IEPs group may include students with 504 plans depending on how a state defined its population. Thirteen of the states with AA-MAS are presented in these figures, though not all states with AA-MAS had them for each grade range. Therefore, the gaps reported here could also vary based on how those states reported their performance data. States with an AA-MAS are indicated in the figures with a box around the percent proficient number for the comparison group.

Elementary School

Figures 16 and 17 present the results for Grade 4. Across the states, the smallest gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group for elementary reading was 9 percentage points, and the largest gap was 51 percentage points. For elementary mathematics, the gap ranged from 9 percentage points to 49 percentage points.

Figure 16. Percent Proficient for Elementary Reading*

Legend:
Heavy Solid Bar= Students with IEPs percent proficient
Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group
Box= State has an AA-MAS
Shaded Box =State reported AA-MAS merged with general assessment
A= All students (n=16 states)
O=Students without IEPs (n=32 states)

* Note:  N=48 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=13 states

Figure 17. Percent Proficient Elementary Mathematics*

Legend:                Heavy Solid Bar= Students with IEPs percent proficient
                                Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group
                                Box= State has an AA-MAS
                                Shaded Box = State reported AA-MAS merged with general assessment
A= All students (n=16 states)
O=Students without IEPs (n=32 states)

* Note:  N=48 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=13 states

Middle School

Figures 18 and 19 show the performance gaps for Grade 8 reading and mathematics. At the middle school level, for reading, gaps ranged from 16 percentage points to 60 percentage points. For mathematics, the gaps ranged from 4 percentage points to 56 percentage points.

Figure 18. Percent Proficient for Middle School Reading*

Legend:                Heavy Solid Bar= Students with IEPs percent proficient
                                Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group
                                Box= State has an AA-MAS
                                Shaded Box = State reported AA-MAS merged with general assessment
A= All students (n=16 states)
O=Students without IEPs (n=32 states)

* Note:  N=48 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=13 states

Figure 19. Percent Proficient Middle School Mathematics*

Legend:                Heavy Solid Bar= Students with IEPs percent proficient
                                Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group
                                Box= State has an AA-MAS
                                Shaded Box = State reported AA-MAS merged with general assessment
A= All students (n=16 states)
O=Students without IEPs (n=32 states)

* Note:  N=48 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=13 states

High School

Figures 20 and 21 show gaps for high school reading and mathematics. For reading, the gaps ranged from 1 percentage point to 61 percentage points; for mathematics the range is from 5 percentage points to 53 percentage points.

Figure 20. Percent Proficient for High School Reading*

Legend:                Heavy Solid Bar= Students with IEPs percent proficient
                                Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group
                                Box= State has an AA-MAS
                                Shaded Box = State reported AA-MAS merged with general assessment
A= All students (n=18 states)
O=Students without IEPs (n=31 states)

* Note:  N=49 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=12 states

Figure 21. Percent Proficient for High School Mathematics*

Legend:                Heavy Solid Bar= Students with IEPs percent proficient
                                Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group
                                Box= State has an AA-MAS
                                Shaded Box = State reported AA-MAS merged with general assessment
A= All students (n=18 states)
O=Students without IEPs (n=31 states)

* Note:  N=49 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=12 states

Average Gap Summaries for Students With and Without IEPs by Content Area and School Level

Table 1 summarizes the average achievement gaps between students with IEPs and the comparison peer group. The comparison peer group may or may not include students with IEPs depending on the reporting practices of each state. The table presents gaps by content and school levels across select years. A limitation of this analysis is that the number of states with data fluctuates from year to year and there are differences in how states report percent proficient for students with IEPs. For example, in some cases, states reported AA-MAS performance merged with general assessment performance.

Table 1 shows the mean gaps for every other year from 2006-2007 through 2012-13. The average gap is presented with the number of states with data for each year. The gap sizes changed only slightly across grades and content areas in these data. For example, for elementary reading, the mean gap was 31 in 2006-07 and 2008-09, 34 in 2010-11, and 35 in 2012-13.

Table 1. Gaps Between Students with IEPs and Comparison Peer Group on General Assessments: Biannually from 2006-07 to 2012-13

Grade Ranges	Mean Gaps for All States with Data1
	2006-07		2008-09		2010-11		2012-13
	Gap	Number of states	Gap	Number of states	Gap	Number of states	Gap	Number of States
Elementary Reading	31	47	31	45	34	45	35  (34)	45  (48)
Middle School Reading	40	47	40	46	41	45	41  (41)	45  (48)
High School Reading	40	46	40	44	40	45	39  (38)	46  (49)
Elementary Math	29	47	28	46	30	45	32  (32)	45  (48)
Middle School Math	40	47	38	46	40	42	40  (39)	45  (48)
High School Math	38	44	37	44	40	43	37  (36)	46  (49)

¹Data in parentheses include the unique states.  Data including the unique states were available only for 2012-13. Prior analyses did not include the unique states.

Ease of Finding Publicly Reported Data

Publicly reported data for students with disabilities is easier to find on some state websites than on others. An analysis was conducted of the number of mouse clicks it took to arrive at public reports for the general assessment and the AA-AAS on state department of education websites. This analysis is similar to analyses in previous reports. The number of mouse clicks for each state did not take into account any potential short cuts through search engines that may have provided a link to parts of a state's education website. As in previous analyses, we did not count the additional clicks needed to choose specific demographic or assessment characteristics on sites that allowed users to generate customized reports. For those sites, we only counted the number of clicks needed to arrive at the generator site and a final "submit" click.

This analysis was referred to as a "click" analysis in some previous reports. Click data for general assessments are presented in Figure 22, and data for AA-AAS are presented in Figure 23. Compared to the most recent year for this analysis (2011-2012), the number of regular states that required 7 clicks decreased from one to none for 2012-13, states with 5-6 clicks (N=15) increased by two, the number of states with 3-4 clicks increased from 30 to 34, and the number of states with 1-2 clicks decreased by four states. For the AA-AAS, there was no clear pattern of increasing or decreasing clicks in 2012-13, with the same number of states at 7 clicks (N=1), one less state in 5-6 clicks (N=16), and four more states in 3-4 clicks (N=30). The number of states requiring 1-2 clicks decreased by two states (N=1) from the previous year. See Figures 22 and 23.

Figure 22. Number of Regular States in Each "Click" Category for Regular States Reporting General Assessments (N=50 of 50 States) for 2012-13

Figure 23. Number of States in Each Click Category for Regular States Reporting AA-AAS (Total N=48 of 50 States) for 2012-13

Top of Page | Table of Contents

---

Accommodations Data on Students with Disabilities

Figure 24 presents the number of regular and unique states that reported data of students with disabilities using accommodations on a general state assessment, by whether the state reported participation, performance, or both. Thirty-two states had at least some accommodated data reported, with 17 states reporting participation and performance, 13 states reporting participation only, and 2 states reporting performance only. See Appendix B-17 for specific state information used in Figure 24.

Figure 24. Number of Regular and Unique States Reporting Data for Students with Disabilities Using Accommodations

Top of Page | Table of Contents

---

Summary and Conclusions

Extent of Public Reporting for Students with Disabilities

Forty-eight regular states, and four unique states, reported participation and performance for all general assessments and alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) used for Title I accountability purposes. Fifty-two of the 61 states reported both participation and performance for all general assessments; 52 reported similar data for the AA-AAS. Of the 16 states with general assessments not used for Title I, only 6 states reported participation and performance and 2 additional states reported participation or performance for some general assessments. This is a decrease from the previous report, where 9 states reported participation and performance for all general assessments not used for Title I (22 states).

Extent of Public Reporting for ELLs with Disabilities

The number of states that reported both participation and performance for ELLs with disabilities stayed the same number as in the previous report (N=7). In addition, 3 states reported these data for some regular assessments, and two other states for either participation or performance. For AA-AAS, more states (N=21) reported participation and performance. This number stayed the same as in the previous two years. It might be expected that more states would have reported disaggregated data for this assessment, given the requirements of ESEA to report by subgroup for each state assessment.

How Data Are Reported

Among the regular states, the most common approaches for communicating participation and performance on general assessments and AA-AAS remained the same in 2008-09, and 2010-11 through 2012-13. For participation in 2012-13, the most common way to report for regular and unique states was in terms of the number assessed (42 states for the general assessment) and percent participating (38 states). For performance, the most common way for regular and unique states was reporting the percent of students in each achievement level (46 states for general assessments) followed by percent proficient (42 states for general assessments). Because states used different methods to report (e.g., merging assessments, grades, or both), the numerators and denominators used to report participation and performance data varied significantly across states. Adding to the complexity is the fact that some states report public data using multiple methods across participation and performance, thus increasing the difficulty of making interpretations about participation and performance.

As in previous reports, this report presented participation rates for middle school mathematics as an example of how states report participation rates for students with disabilities. Ten states reported participation rates by grade in a way that would be comparable to include in a graph. Additional states provide numbers that would possibly allow for rates to be calculated. However, in recent years participation data have become less transparent, in part because states that had alternates based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) sometimes opted to merge those data with the general assessment data in public reporting for participation and performance. Most states with an AA-MAS did not report participation rates for the AA-MAS separately, though a few did. Another reason that rates may be less straightforward is that states vary in the denominators used to calculate rates.

Achievement Gaps

The achievement gaps between students with and without IEPs in reading and mathematics continue. This report presented average achievement gaps for elementary, middle school, and high school levels. As in past reports, there were smaller overall gaps in elementary reading and mathematics than at the middle school and high school levels. At the middle school and high school levels, for reading and mathematics, the average gaps across states spanned from 36 percentage points to 41 percentage points for 2012-13. Because states vary in the methods they use to publicly report data, this influences the achievement gaps reported. As would be expected, those states with "all students" as the comparison group tended to show smaller gaps compared to states using students without IEPs" as the comparison group. Other factors that influence the size of achievement gaps include whether a state has an AA-MAS, the percentage of students taking an AA-MAS in lieu of the general assessment, and how these data are reported.

Ease of Finding Data on State Websites

State websites vary in the ease of use in finding data about the participation and performance of students with disabilities. This report showed mixed changes in the number of clicks required to find data for students with disabilities on the general assessment. The highest 7 click category lost one state, and the lowest click category lost four states. The middle click categories of 3-4 and 5-6 clicks, also increased by six states, but with a couple more additions in the lower of the two click categories. For the alternate assessment, there was no clear pattern, with a decrease of one state in a higher 5-6 click category and a loss of two states in the lower 1-2 click category, and a gain of 4 states in the 3-4 click category. As in previous years, the majority of states required only 3 to 4 clicks to locate assessment data both for the general assessment (34 states) and AA-AAS (30 states).

Recommendations for Reporting

As many states transition to new assessments based on College- and Career-Ready Standards, there may be changes in how participation and performance data for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities are reported. In the intervening time, it is important that states continue to publicly report data for students with disabilities with the same frequency and detail as for other students. As in the previous report (Albus, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2014), the following recommendations are offered to states for public reporting of disaggregated data for students with disabilities:

1. Report participation and performance results for each assessment, content area, and grade level.
2. Clearly label preliminary and final data with dates posted.
3. Report participation with accommodations.
4. Report participation percentages, disaggregated by grade.
5. Make data accessible by attending carefully to the usability of formats, ease of finding information, and clarity of language.
6. Provide reports in a format that are user-friendly for the general public rather than relying on technical reports to be the sole type of public reporting for student data.
   

Top of Page | Table of Contents

---

References

Albus, D., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2014). 2011-12 Publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report 69). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2013). 2010-11 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report 68). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. (2013). 2010-11 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report 68). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Albus, D., Thurlow, M., & Bremer, C. (2009). Achieving transparency in the public reporting of 2006-2007 assessment results (Technical Report 53). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

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.

Thurlow, M., Bremer, C., & Albus, D. (2008). Good news bad news in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2005-2006 assessment results (Technical Report 52). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M. L., Bremer, C., & Albus, D. (2011). 2008-09 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (Technical Report 59). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

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.

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.

US Department of Education (2013). ESEA flexibility: Frequently asked questions addendum. Washington, DC: author.

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.

Top of Page | Table of Contents

---

Appendix A

Material Used for the Verification Process

Appendix A is presented in another document.

---

Appendix B

Data Tables

Appendix B is presented in another document.