Deb A. Albus, Kristin K. Liu, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Martha L. Thurlow
July 2018
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. A., Liu, K. K., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2018). 2015-16 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELs with disabilities (NCEO Report 407). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Reporting assessment results to the public has been a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since the early 1990s, with the reauthorization of ESEA as the Improving America’s Schools Act in 1994. In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included this requirement to make sure that assessment participation and performance were reported publicly for students with disabilities who received special education services.
The purpose of this report is to examine the extent to which states reported 2015-16 assessment 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 assessment participation and performance data to the public online. It summarizes these data for grades 4 and 8, and high school, with additional analyses that focus on average performance gaps across years. The report also summarizes the extent to which states report participation and performance for English Learners (ELs) with disabilities and examines public reporting of accommodations. A summary of results are provided below.
Thirty regular states, and one unique state, reported participation and performance for all general assessments and alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) used for Title I accountability purposes in 2015-16. Thirty-seven of the 61 states reported both participation and performance for all general assessments and 40 reported similar data for the AA-AAS.
Of the 27 states with general assessments not used for Title I, only seven states reported participation and performance and two additional states reported performance only. This is almost exactly the same number that reported these in the prior year.
The number of states that reported both participation and performance for ELs with disabilities decreased to two states from three in 2014-15. For AA-AAS, 13 states reported participation and performance of ELs with disabilities. This number increased by one from 12 states in 2014-15. In 2015-16, no state reported participation and performance for ELs with disabilities on general assessments not used for Title I, whereas one state reported these data in 2014-15.
Among the regular states, the most common approaches for communicating participation and performance on general assessments and AA-AAS remained the same in 2015-16 as the prior year. The most common way to report for regular and unique states on general assessments was in terms of the number assessed (35 states) and percent participating (28 states). For performance, the most common way for regular and unique states to report on general assessments was the percent proficient (N=38), followed by percent of students in each achievement level (N=32).
For state reporting of participation rates for middle school math, as an example of participation rate reporting, there were 17 states that reported participation rates by grade in a way that would be comparable to include in a graph. Additional states provided numbers that would possibly allow for rates to be calculated. Because the AA-MAS has been phased out of most states that used them, it is anticipated that these data should become more transparent in future reporting cycles.
The achievement gaps between students with and without Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in reading and mathematics continue. This report presents average achievement gaps for elementary, middle school, and high school levels. As in past reports, there were generally smaller overall gaps in elementary reading and mathematics than at the middle school and high school levels. There were a few states that did not fit this generalization.
In the previous report year (2014-15), there had been a noticeable decrease in the average gap for middle and high school mathematics from the previous two years, and the current year continued with these lower average gaps. Due to the many factors underlying achievement gaps, the reason for the observed changes starting in 2014-15 is not clear. Many states were field-testing or adopting new assessments in this time frame, which may have affected the publicly reported data.
Many states have transitioned to new assessments based on college- and career-ready standards, and states continue to shift in what assessments they are using. Given this backdrop, and flexibility in different approaches for accountability reporting, there may be further changes in how participation and performance data for students with disabilities and ELs with disabilities are reported. The following recommendations are offered to states for public reporting of disaggregated data for students with disabilities:
This report examined only the participation, performance, and achievement gaps for students with disabilities, including ELs with disabilities, on states’ general and alternate assessments of reading and math. With the passage of ESSA, states are now required to disaggregate data on the progress of ELs with disabilities on statewide assessments of English language proficiency. It will be important to examine the extent to which these data are reported as well as the nature of the data that are reported.
Top of Page | Table of Contents
Reporting assessment results to the public has been a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since the early 1990s, with the reauthorization of ESEA as the Improving America’s Schools Act in 1994. In 1997, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) included this requirement to make sure that assessment participation and performance were reported publicly for students with disabilities who received special education services.
This requirement has continued through subsequent reauthorizations of ESEA and IDEA. All states that receive federal funding, including unique states, are to report reading, mathematics, and science assessment data to the federal government for all students and student subgroups. In addition, states are required to report the number of students with disabilities who receive accommodations during state assessments. States report these data online to the public in several ways, including as state report cards, state assessment reports, and customized data reports generated on state education websites (Albus, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2014).
For many years, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has documented the public reporting of participation and performance data for students with disabilities who receive special education services and for English learners (ELs) with disabilities when available. In its previous report for the school year 2014-15 (Thurlow, Albus, & Lazarus, 2017), NCEO noted that many states were field testing new assessments, for either their general assessment or their alternate assessments. Often, these were assessments of the consortia of states that had developed common assessments for use across states. As a result, a number of states had not provided public reports on assessment results for students with disabilities. It was expected that this was an anomaly in public reporting for just that year.
The purpose of this report is to examine the extent to which states reported 2015-16 assessment 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 assessment participation and performance data to the public online. It summarizes these data for grades 4 and 8, and high school, with additional analyses that focus on average performance gaps across years. The report also summarizes the extent to which states report participation and performance for ELs with disabilities. It also examines the public reporting of accommodations.
NCEO has tracked and analyzed public reporting for students with disabilities for more than 15 years. In 2014-15, the total number of regular and unique states reporting disaggregated participation and performance data online for students with disabilities on general assessments was 42 states (Thurlow et al., 2017). This was a slight decrease from 45 states reporting these data in 2013-14 (Lazarus, Albus, & Thurlow, 2016). This number was 52 states in 2012-13, 49 states in 2011-12, 53 states in 2010-11, and 46 states in 2008-09 and 2007-08 (Albus, Lazarus & Thurlow, 2015; Albus & Thurlow, 2013; Thurlow, Bremer, & Albus, 2011; Albus, Thurlow, & Bremer, 2009). From 2002-03 to 2006-07, the number of states reporting participation and performance varied between 35 states and 39 states (Klein, Wiley, & Thurlow, 2006; Thurlow, Bremer, & Albus, 2008; Thurlow & Wiley, 2004; Thurlow, Wiley, & Bielinski, 2003; Wiley, Thurlow, & Klein, 2005; VanGetson & Thurlow, 2007).
In 2014-15, the number of states that reported disaggregated participation and performance data on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) was 37. In 2013-14, this number was 48 states. The number of states reporting for the AA-AAS had been as high as 52 in 2012-13 and as low as 36 states in 2006-07 and 2007-08.
In 2014-15, only three states reported both participation and performance for ELs with disabilities for Title I assessments, whereas 12 states reported data for the AA-AAS for ELs with disabilities. In addition, one state reported participation and performance for ELs with disabilities on general assessments not used for Title I. It was expected that these numbers might increase, given the increased emphasis on ELs with disabilities in ESSA.
Top of Page | Table of Contents
Between January and March 2016, state department of education websites were searched for publicly available reports that disaggregated participation and performance data for students with disabilities for the 2015-16 school year (i.e., state assessment reports, state report cards, customized report generators, and other report formats). The Annual Performance Report (APR) that states submit for federal accountability was not included in the analysis.
States included in the search were the 50 “regular” states and 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 regardless of whether they were used for Title I accountability, including those assessments required to be given to subpopulations such as those designed for bilingual students or ELs that were either general or alternate assessments.
Individual state summary tables were prepared for verification using the information gathered about how states reported participation and performance. This verification process with state assessment directors and state directors of special education occurred from August to October, 2017. A total of 26 states verified their state data, up from just 13 states the prior year. After the verification was completed, the information on how and whether states reported participation and performance was summarized and additional information on participation rates and proficiency rates were analyzed. Double-checks of the data were completed for accuracy. Appendix A provides a sample of the email that was sent to state directors for verification, along with a sample of tables used in the verification process.
Different types of assessments are given in states to serve 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 found 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, assessments were 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 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.
For the few states that administer additional types of alternate assessments, such as those using modified achievement standards or grade-level achievement standards, we provide only basic information on how they reported those data.
Changes in policies over time for reporting data to the U.S. Department of Education, as well as adjustments in our own criteria, which narrowed after 2004-05, likely have affected the numbers of states counted as reporting on the general assessment and AA-AAS across years. 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 are presented in five sections in this report. The first section presents information about how states reported participation and performance data for students with disabilities for general and alternate assessments used for Title I accountability as well as those assessments not used for Title I accountability. It also examines how the same data were reported for English learners with disabilities. The second section describes the approaches states used to report participation data for general assessments. The third section describes the approaches states used to report performance data for general assessments. The fourth section presents general assessment performance data at the elementary, middle school, and high school levels for reading and math, including information about average achievement gaps. The final section presents information about the public reporting of the use of accommodations on state assessments.
Top of Page | Table of Contents
Figure 1 shows that 37 of the 61 regular and unique states (61%) reported participation and performance for all general assessments used for Title I accountability for students with disabilities. Fifteen percent reported participation and performance for some general assessments and 15 percent had no publicly reported data. Four of the 9 states with no publicly reported data for students with disabilities also had no publicly reported data for students without disabilities (or for all students). Five percent (3 unique states) had no general assessments used for Title I because they are not held to ESEA requirements. States with “no information found” (2%) differed from states without reported data found in that no assessment information or documents were found for general students in those states.
Figure 2 shows how each state reported the participation and performance of students with disabilities for the general assessment. The map shows that most states had full reporting of participation and performance for students with disabilities on general assessments used for Title I accountability. For details, see Table B-1 in Appendix B.
Figure 1. Extent of Reporting of General Assessment Data for Students with Disabilities Used for Title I [N=61]
Figure 2. States Reporting 2015-16 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on General State Assessments Used for Title I*
Thirty-four states only had general assessments used for Title I. We examined reporting for the remaining 27 states, which had additional assessments, ones not used for Title I accountability. Figure 3 shows that of the 27 states that had general assessments not used for Title I, 7 states reported participation and performance data for all tests, 2 reported performance only for all tests, and 18 states did not publicly report data.
Figure 3. Extent of Reporting of General Assessment Data for Students with Disabilities Not Used for Title I [N=61]
Figure 4 presents participation and performance reporting by state for general assessments not used for Title I. This map shows that only a handful of states publicly reported participation and performance for these assessments. For details, see Table B-2 in Appendix B.
Figure 4. States Reporting 2015-16 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on General Assessments Not Used for Title I*
This section presents information on 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. Figure 5 shows that 40 states reported both participation and performance data for all AA-AAS. This represents 65% of the states. One state reported these data for some AA-AAS, and two states reported performance only. The remaining states either had no AA-AAS used for Title I, had no publicly reported data found for AA-AAS, or no information was found about having an AA-AAS.
Figure 5. Extent of Reporting of 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=40) publicly reported participation and performance for students with disabilities for these assessments. For details, see Table B-3 in Appendix.
Figure 6. States Reporting 2015-16 Participation or Performance Data for Students with Disabilities on AA-AAS Used for Title I*
Like their peers, most English learners with disabilities take general assessments. Only a small percentage take an AA-AAS. Figure 7 shows that 53 states did not report participation or performance for ELs with disabilities on general assessments used for Title I. Only 2 states reported both participation and performance data for all general assessments used for Title I. This represents 3% of the states.
Figure 7. Extent of States Reporting Data for ELs with Disabilities on General Assessments Used for Title I [N=61]
Figure 8 presents the states that reported participation and performance data for ELs with disabilities on general assessments used for Title I. This map shows that very few states (N=2) publicly reported participation and performance data for ELs with disabilities on all general assessments. For details, see Table B-4 in Appendix B.
Figure 8. States Reporting 2014-15 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for ELs with Disabilities on General Assessments Used for Title I*
For the 27 states that had general assessments not used for Title I, no state reported participation and performance for ELs with disabilities (see B-5 in Appendix B for more details).
Figure 9 shows that 13 states, or 21% of states, publicly reported participation and performance on all AA-AAS for ELs with disabilities. Another 2 states publicly reported these data for some of their AA-AAS. Forty-three states did not publicly report data for ELs with disabilities who participated in an AA-AAS.
Figure 9. Extent of States Reporting AA-AAS Data for ELs with Disabilities for Title I [N=61]
Figure 10 shows the 15 states that reported participation and performance for ELs with disabilities on some or all of the AA-AAS used for Title I. For details, see Table B-6 in Appendix B.
Figure 10. States Reporting 2015-16 Disaggregated Participation or Performance Data for ELs with Disabilities on AA-AAS Used for Title I
Alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) were an optional assessment used for Title I accountability until 2014-15. In 2015-16, two states continued to administer these assessments in their states. These states reported participation and performance data for that year, either separately or noted that the AA-MAS data were merged with data for the general assessment. Both states also reported participation and performance disaggregated for ELs with disabilities. For details, see Table B-7 in Appendix B.
According to the publicly available data on state assessments found, two states had an Alternate Assessment based on Grade-Level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS). Both of these states reported participation and performance data for students with disabilities, and one reported these data for ELs. For details see Table B-8 in Appendix B.
Top of Page | Table of Contents
States reported participation data for assessments in several ways. Figure 11 shows the approaches taken by 46 states that reported participation data. Thirty-five states publicly reported the number of students tested and 28 states reported the percent of students participating in general assessments for the Title I accountability system. Four states reported the percent of students with no scores or the number of students with no scores. Figure 11 includes data for 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-9 in Appendix B. For details about AA-AAS participation see Table B-10 in Appendix B.
Figure 11. States Reporting Participation by Students with Disabilities for General Assessments Used for Title I Accountability in 2015-16
Figure 12 shows the participation rates for grade 8 mathematics for those states with this information reported by grade and test. Of the 28 states that reported on participation rates, 17 states reported these data with denominators based on students with disabilities in grade 8 using an approach that could be compared (e.g., does not include rates of entire population or rates reported by accommodated status). See Appendix Table B-11 for the state abbreviation key.
Figure 12. Percentages of Students with Disabilities Participating in Middle School General Math Assessments in Those States with Reported Participation Rates by Grade Level in 2015-16
Top of Page | Table of Contents
States reported performance data in a variety of ways, such as the number or percent in each achievement level, percent proficient or not proficient, average scaled scores, or percentiles, for example. Figure 13 shows that of the 47 states that reported performance data, the most common way was by percent proficient (N=38). The next most frequent way was by percent proficient by achievement level (N=32). The “other” category includes states that reported scaled scores, percentiles, or other types of scores. 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). Also, states could be counted more than once for the type of data reported, so the number does not total to 61 states. For additional details see Table B-12 in Appendix B. For details about AA-AAS performance see Table B-13 in the Appendix.
Figure 13. Number of States Reporting Performance in Different Ways for Students with Disabilities in 2015-16 General Assessments Used for Title I
Top of Page | Table of Contents
In this section the performance of students with and without Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) is compared for states that reported data for each of three representative grades (e.g., Grade 4, Grade 8, and high school) by the content areas of reading and mathematics. Figures 14 to 19 show the gaps between students with disabilities and a comparison peer group, with the solid line representing the gap between student groups. The comparison peer group varied by state, with some states reporting the performance of students without IEPs and others reporting the total student population that included students with IEPs. Because the gaps were affected by whether a state used a comparison group of 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. 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 proficiency number for the comparison group, but these states did not report AA-MAS merged with the regular assessment. See Appendix Table B-11 for the state abbreviation key.
Figures 14 and 15 present the results for Grade 4. Across the states, the smallest gap between students with IEPs and the comparison group for elementary reading was 11 percentage points, and the largest gap was 48 percentage points. For elementary mathematics, the gap ranged from 7 percentage points to 44 percentage points.
Figure 14. Percent Proficient for Elementary Reading*
| Legend: | Heavy Solid Bar = Students with IEPs percent proficient Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and comparison group Box = State has an AA-MAS A = All students (n=19 states) O = Students without IEPs (n=21 states) |
*Note: N=40 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=21 states.
Figure 15. Percent Proficient Elementary Mathematics*
| Legend: | Heavy Solid Bar = Students with IEPs percent proficient Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and comparison group Box = State has an AA-MAS A = All students (n=19 states) O = Students without IEPs (n=21 states) |
*Note: N=40 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data =21 states
Figures 16 and 17 show the performance gaps for Grade 8 reading and mathematics. At the middle school level, for reading, gaps ranged from 21 percentage points to 49 percentage points. For mathematics, the gaps ranged from 1 percentage points to 49 percentage points.
Figure 16. Percent Proficient for Middle School Reading*
| Legend: | Heavy Solid Bar = Students with IEPs percent proficient Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and comparison group Box = State has an AA-MAS A = All students (n=18 states) O = Students without IEPs (n=21 states) |
*Note: N=39 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=22 states
Figure 17. Percent Proficient Middle School Mathematics*
| Legend: | Heavy Solid Bar = Students with IEPs percent proficient Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and comparison group Box = State has an AA-MAS A = All students (n=19 states) O = Students without IEPs (n=21 states) |
*Note: N=40 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data=21 states
Figures 18 and 19 show gaps for high school reading and mathematics. Grade 10 was used when more than one grade was tested. For reading, the gaps ranged from 18 percentage points to 83 percentage points; for mathematics the range is from 3 percentage points to 44 percentage points.
Figure 18. Percent Proficient for High School Reading*
| Legend: | Heavy Solid Bar = Students with IEPs percent proficient Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and comparison group Box = State has an AA-MAS A = All students (n=18 states) O = Students without IEPs (n=22 states) |
*Note: N=40 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data= 21 states
Figure 19. Percent Proficient for High School Mathematics*
| Legend: | Heavy Solid Bar = Students with IEPs percent proficient Narrow Solid Line = Gap between students with IEPs and comparison group Box = State has an AA-MAS A = All students (n=19 states) O = Students without IEPs (n=22 states) |
*Note: N=41 of 61 states [includes unique states]; No data= 20 states
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 area and school levels across select years. There are limitations to this analysis in that the number of states with data fluctuates each year and the assessments a state use may change over time. Further, in prior years, some states reported AA-MAS performance merged with general assessment performance.
Table 1 shows the mean gaps for every other year from 2006-07 through 2014-15 and the current year. 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 except for 2014-15 and the current year for middle and high school math, where math average gaps were much lower compared to previous years, even though the number of states changed only slightly. For example, for elementary reading, the mean gap was 31 in 2006-07 and 2008-09, 34 in 2010-11, 35 in 2012-13, 32 in 2014-15, and 33 in 2015-16. But for middle and high school math, the gap ranged from 37 to 40 from 2006-07 to 2013-14, but was 28 to 30 in the past two years.
Table 1. Gaps for Students with IEPs and Comparison Peer Group on General Assessments: Biannually from 2006-07 to 2014-15 and Current Data Year
| Grade Ranges | Mean Gaps for All States with Data1 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-2007 | 2008-2009 | 2010-11 | 2012-13 | 2014-15 | 2015-16 | |||||||
| Gap | No. of states |
Gap | No. of states |
Gap | No. of states |
Gap | No. of states |
Gap | No. of states |
Gap | No. of states |
|
| Elementary Reading | 31 | 47 | 41 | 45 | 34 | 45 | 35 (34) |
45 (48) |
32 (32) |
41 (42) |
33 (32) |
37 (40) |
| Middle School Reading | 40 | 47 | 40 | 46 | 41 | 45 | 41 (41) |
45 (48) |
38 (38) |
41 (42) |
39 (39) |
37 (39) |
| High School Reading | 40 | 46 | 40 | 44 | 40 | 45 | 39 (38) |
46 (49) |
37 (36) |
41 (42) |
39 (38) |
38 (40) |
| Elementary Math | 29 | 47 | 28 | 46 | 30 | 45 | 32 (32) |
45 (48) |
29 (28) |
41 (42) |
30 (29) |
37 (40) |
| Middle School Math | 40 | 47 | 38 | 46 | 40 | 42 | 40 (39) |
45 (48) |
29 (29) |
41 (42) |
31 (29) |
37 (40) |
| High School Math | 38 | 44 | 37 | 44 | 40 | 43 | 37 (36) |
46 (49) |
28 (27) |
42 (43) |
28 (27) |
38 (41) |
1Data in parentheses include the unique states. Data including the unique states were not available prior to 2012-13 so were not included in the analyses.
Figure 20 presents the number of regular and unique states that reported data for students with disabilities using accommodations on the general assessment, by whether the state reported participation, performance, or both. Only 14 states had any accommodations data reported, with 10 states reporting participation and performance, 3 states reporting participation only, and 1 state reporting performance only. This shows a decrease from the prior year where 20 states reported data on students using accommodations, with 12 states reporting participation and performance and 8 states either reporting only participation or performance. See Appendix B-14 for specific state information shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20. Number of States Reporting Accommodations Data
Top of Page | Table of Contents
Thirty regular states, and one 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 in 2015-16. Thirty-seven of the 61 states reported both participation and performance for all general assessments and 40 reported similar data for the AA-AAS.
Of the 27 states with general assessments not used for Title I, only 7 states reported participation and performance and 2 additional states reported performance only. This is almost exactly the same number that reported these in the prior year, where one less state reported participation and performance and one less state reported performance only, for all general assessments not used for Title I.
The number of states that reported both participation and performance for ELs with disabilities decreased to two states from three in 2014-15. For AA-AAS, 13 states reported participation and performance. This number increased by one from 12 states in 2014-15. However, this number has dropped significantly from the previous two years when 21 states reported these data. 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. In 2015-16, no state reported participation and performance for ELs with disabilities on general assessments not used for Title I, whereas one state reported these data in 2014-15.
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 2014-15. For participation in 2015-16, the most common way to report for regular and unique states on general assessments was in terms of the number assessed (35 states) and percent participating (28 states). For performance, the most common way for regular and unique states to report on general assessments was the percent proficiency (N=38), followed by percent of students in each achievement level (N=32). 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. Seventeen states reported participation rates by grade in a way that would be comparable to include in a graph. Additional states provided 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) or alternates based on grade-level achievement standards sometimes opted to merge those data with the general assessment data in public reporting for participation and performance. Because the AA-MAS has been phased out of most states that used them, it is anticipated that these data should become more transparent. Although some states report merged participation rates for general assessments and AA-AAS, this usually does not have a strong influence on the overall participation rates given the very low percentage of students that participate in the AA-AAS. Another reason that rates may be less straightforward is that states vary in the denominators used to calculate rates.
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 generally smaller overall gaps in elementary reading and mathematics than at the middle school and high school levels. There were a few states that did not fit this generalization. For example, one state had a gap as low as 1 percentage point in high school mathematics. At the middle school and high school levels, for reading and mathematics, the average gaps across states spanned from 28 percentage points to 45 percentage points for 2015-16, a range almost identical to the previous year.
In the previous report year (2014-15), there had been a noticeable decrease in the average gap for middle and high school mathematics from the previous two years, and the current year continued with these lower average gaps. Due to the many factors underlying achievement gaps, the reason for the observed changes starting in 2014-15 is not clear. Many states were field-testing or adopting new assessments in this time frame, which may have affected the publicly reported data. And states continued to shift assessments after 2014-15. But there may be other factors also contributing to this shift in average gaps. In general, the different methods used to report data among states 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 had an AA-MAS, the percentage of students taking an AA-MAS in lieu of the general assessment, and how these data are reported.
Many states have transitioned to new assessments based on College- and Career-Ready Standards, and states continue to shift in what assessments they are using. Given this backdrop, and flexibility in different approaches for accountability reporting, there may be further changes in how participation and performance data for students with disabilities and ELs 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 (Thurlow, Albus, & Lazarus, 2017), the following recommendations are offered to states for public reporting of disaggregated data for students with disabilities:
This report examined only the participation, performance, and achievement gaps, for students with disabilities, including ELs with disabilities, on states’ general and alternate assessments of reading and math. With the passage of ESSA, states are now required to disaggregate data on the progress of ELs with disabilities on statewide assessments of English language proficiency. It will be important to examine the extent to which these data are reported as well as the nature of the data that are reported.
Top of Page | Table of Contents
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.
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., & 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.
Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. L. (2016). 2013-14 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELLs with disabilities (NCEO Report 401). 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., Albus, D. A., & Lazarus, S. S. (2017). 2014-15 publicly reported assessment results for students with disabilities and ELs with disabilities (NCEO Report 405). 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.
U.S. 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
The National Center on Educational Outcomes is examining states’ public reports for the 2015-2016 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 and English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities; and
(c) describe the way participation and performance information is presented.
As in previous years, we are looking at assessment department reports and the equivalent of report cards used for Title I.
We have reviewed your Web site for this information and have enclosed tables summarizing that review. Please verify all included information. Specifically, please return the tables that we have attached, noting your changes to them. Also, if there is additional publicly reported information available for your state, please provide us with the public document and/or website that contains the information. Address your responses to Deb Albus via email albus001@umn.edu.
If you have any questions about our request, please email Deb Albus or call at (612) 626-0323. Please respond by September 5, 2017.
Thank you for taking the time to provide this information.
Martha Thurlow, Director NCEO
Deb Albus, Research Fellow, NCEO
Alabama
1. Reporting in State Assessments Summary
Please check the information below for accuracy and make edits as needed.
| Assessments | Grade | Subject Areas | Disaggregated Data | Used for Title I |
|||
| Special Education | ELLs with Disabilities | ||||||
| Partici- pation |
Perform- ance |
Partici- pation |
Perform- ance |
||||
| ACT Aspire | 3-8, 10 | Reading, Math | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| The ACT College Readiness Test | 11 | English, Math, Reading, Science | No | No | No | No | No |
| Alabama Alternate Assessment | 3-8, 11 | Reading, Math | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
2. Reporting on Students with Disabilities
How was participation and performance reported on the Title I assessments (general and alternate based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS))?
Note Yes, No, or NA (not applicable). If AA-AAS is merged with general, repeat the answer for general.
| For Title I Assessments: | Participation | Performance | |||
| Participation | General | AA-AAS | Performance | General | AA-AAS |
| Number Enrolled/ Eligible to be Tested | No | No | Percent Proficient | Yes | Yes |
| Number of Students Tested | No | No | OR Percent Proficient Derived | No | No |
| Number of Students Not Tested | No | No | Percent Not Proficient | No | No |
| Percent Participating in Test | No | Yes | Number Proficient | No | No |
| Percent of Students Not Tested | No | No | Number Not Proficient | No | No |
| Number of Students with Scores | No | No | Number by Achievement Level | No | No |
| Number of Students with No scores | No | No | Percent by Achievement Level | Yes | Yes |
| Percent of Students with No Scores | No | No | Other (e.g., percentile rank) | No | No |
3. If your state had an alternate based on modified achievement standards in 2014, how was participation reported? Not applicable
Accommodated Status Reporting
4. Did your state report accommodated status data for any population? List assessments or note NA, then answer Yes or No. Please note the report name or provide link if different from below.
| List assessment and describe reporting | Reported Participation? | Reported Performance? | |
| On what assessment(s)? | No | No | No |
Report name/Link to report/attach:
Participation and Performance Data for Students with Disabilities, English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA)
5. Disaggregated Data for the English Language Proficiency Assessment
| ELPA Name | Grade | Reports Data for All Students | Disaggregated Data for ELLs with Disabilities | |
| Participation | Performance | |||
| Not found, was ACCESS for ELLs | K-12 | No | No | No |
Top of Page | Table of Contents
Appendix B Data Tables are available in a separate document.