No Child Left Behind Act
Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved
Gao ID: GAO-05-618 July 20, 2005
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused attention on improving the academic achievement of all students, including more than 6 million students with disabilities and requires that all students be assessed. Students with disabilities may be included through accommodations, such as extended time, or alternate assessments, such as teacher observation of student performance. To provide information about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments, GAO determined (1) the extent to which students with disabilities were included in statewide assessments; (2) what issues selected states faced in implementing alternate assessments; and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) supported states in their efforts to assess students with disabilities.
In the 2003-04 school year, at least 95 percent of students with disabilities participated in statewide reading assessments in 41 of the 49 states that provided data. Students with disabilities were most often included in the regular reading assessment, and relatively few took alternate assessments. Nationwide, the percentage of students with disabilities who were excluded from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was 5 percent, but varied across states, ranging from about 2 percent to 10 percent in 2002. Among the reasons for exclusion were differences in accommodations between states and the NAEP and variation in decisions among states about who should take the NAEP. National experts and officials in the four states we studied told us that designing and implementing alternate assessments was difficult because these assessments were relatively new and the abilities of students assessed varied widely. Officials in two states said they were not using an alternate assessment measured on grade-level standards because they were unfamiliar with such assessment models or because of concerns that the assessment would not appropriately measure achievement. In addition, learning the skills to administer alternate assessments was time-consuming for teachers, as was administering the assessment. Education provided support to states on including students with disabilities in statewide assessments in a number of ways, including disseminating guidance through its Web site. However, a number of state officials told us that the regulations and guidance did not provide illustrative examples of alternate assessments and how they could be used to appropriately assess students with disabilities. In addition, our review of Education's Web site revealed that information on certain topics was difficult to locate.
Recommendations
Our recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director:
Team:
Phone:
GAO-05-618, No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-618
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities
Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be
Improved' which was released on July 20, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
July 2005:
No Child Left Behind Act:
Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments,
but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved:
Note: The information contained in this report has been updated in
GAO-06-194R, dated October 28, 2005.
GAO-05-618:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-618, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused attention on improving
the academic achievement of all students, including more than 6 million
students with disabilities and requires that all students be assessed.
Students with disabilities may be included through accommodations, such
as extended time, or alternate assessments, such as teacher observation
of student performance. To provide information about the participation
of students with disabilities in statewide assessments, GAO determined
(1) the extent to which students with disabilities were included in
statewide assessments; (2) what issues selected states faced in
implementing alternate assessments; and (3) how the U.S. Department of
Education (Education) supported states in their efforts to assess
students with disabilities.
What GAO Found:
In the 2003-04 school year, at least 95 percent of students with
disabilities participated in statewide reading assessments in 41 of the
49 states that provided data. Students with disabilities were most
often included in the regular reading assessment, and relatively few
took alternate assessments. Nationwide, the percentage of students with
disabilities who were excluded from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) was 5 percent, but varied across states,
ranging from about 2 percent to 10 percent in 2002. Among the reasons
for exclusion were differences in accommodations between states and the
NAEP and variation in decisions among states about who should take the
NAEP.
Participation Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04
School Year for Students with Disabilities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
National experts and officials in the four states we studied told us
that designing and implementing alternate assessments was difficult
because these assessments were relatively new and the abilities of
students assessed varied widely. Officials in two states said they were
not using an alternate assessment measured on grade-level standards
because they were unfamiliar with such assessment models or because of
concerns that the assessment would not appropriately measure
achievement. In addition, learning the skills to administer alternate
assessments was time-consuming for teachers, as was administering the
assessment.
Education provided support to states on including students with
disabilities in statewide assessments in a number of ways, including
disseminating guidance through its Web site. However, a number of state
officials told us that the regulations and guidance did not provide
illustrative examples of alternate assessments and how they could be
used to appropriately assess students with disabilities. In addition,
our review of Education‘s Web site revealed that information on certain
topics was difficult to locate.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Education explore ways to make information about
inclusion of students with disabilities more accessible on its Web site
and work with states, particularly those with high exclusion rates, to
explore strategies to reduce the number of students with disabilities
who are excluded from the NAEP assessment. In comments, Education
officials noted that they were taking actions that would address our
recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-618.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul at (202)
512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Reading
Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year:
States Faced Challenges in Designing and Preparing Teachers to
Administer Alternate Assessments:
Education Disseminated Information to States on Assessing Students with
Disabilities, but Some State Officials Reported the Need for Alternate
Assessment Examples:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in
State Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year, by
State:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards:
Table 2: Massachusetts' Data on How Students with Different Types of
Disabilities Were Included in Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-
04 School Year:
Table 3: Accommodations Provided in Some Regular Statewide Assessments
but Not for NAEP:
Table 4. Selected Alternate Assessments Used in Study States and
Descriptions:
Figures:
Figure 1: Distribution of State and the District of Columbia
Participation Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04
School Year:
Figure 2: Distribution of States and the District of Columbia by the
Percentages of Students with Disabilities Who Received Alternate
Assessments Measuring Grade-Level and Below Grade-Level Standards in
the 2003-04 School Year:
Figure 3: Example of How a Below Grade-Level Standard Differs in
Complexity from a Grade-Level Standard:
Abbreviations:
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965:
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act:
IEP: Individualized Education Program:
NAEP: National Assessment of Educational Progress:
NCLBA: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001:
OESE: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 20, 2005:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
In the 2003-04 school year, more than 6 million students with
disabilities--approximately 13 percent of all students--attended U.S.
public schools. In an effort to improve the academic achievement of all
students, including those with disabilities, the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLBA) of 2001 requires that states, districts, and schools are
held accountable for their students' academic performance. Like all
students, those with disabilities must be included in statewide
assessments of achievement under the NCLBA. Assessments for students
with disabilities are also required under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). States must provide options to
ensure that students with disabilities are included in annual
assessments. States need to offer accommodations to meet these
students' needs, for example, by giving them more time to take the same
assessment as other students. States also are required to offer
alternate assessments that measure students' performance at the same
grade-level standards or at below grade-level standards.[Footnote 1]
For example, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
could be assessed on their knowledge of academic content, such as
fractions, by having to split groups of objects into two, three, or
equal parts. Separately, under NCLBA, states participate periodically
in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which
provides a national picture of student academic achievement and a
common measure of student achievement across states.
Questions have been raised, however, about the extent to which students
with disabilities have been included in statewide assessments and
whether these assessments accurately reflected student performance.
Given your interest in these issues, we are providing you with
information about (1) the extent to which students with disabilities
were included in statewide assessments; (2) what issues selected states
faced in implementing alternate assessments; and (3) how the U.S.
Department of Education (Education) supported states in their efforts
to assess students with disabilities.
To obtain this information we used multiple data collection methods. To
provide a national perspective, we reviewed and verified data on
statewide assessments for the most recent school year available, 2003-
04, from the State Consolidated Performance Reports provided by state
officials to Education. Complete data were not available for
mathematics assessments. Thus, we only verified reading-assessment
data.[Footnote 2] This included data from 48 states and the District of
Columbia on the participation rate of students with disabilities in
assessments and data from 50 states and the District of Columbia on the
types of assessments in which students with disabilities were included.
Two states did not provide participation rate data in a usable format
for students with disabilities, and one of these states also did not do
so for all students. We also interviewed national education
organization representatives and assessment experts. Second, we made
site visits to four states--Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Oregon--
to collect in-depth information from state, district, and local
officials. We selected these states to obtain variance in the
participation rate of students with disabilities in statewide
assessments, the type of alternate assessment data available in each
state, innovative state approaches to assessment, and the availability
of state assessment data for students with disabilities. We reviewed
several national studies on the effects of students being excluded from
NAEP and determined they were reliable for the purposes for which we
used them. We also analyzed Education's documents and Web site,
legislation, and other materials related to the assessment requirements
for students with disabilities. We conducted our work between September
2004 and June 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading
assessments in the 2003-04 school year, according to data collected by
Education. Of the 48 reporting states and the District of Columbia, 41
states reported that at least 95 percent of students with disabilities
participated in the statewide reading assessment. The remaining states
and the District of Columbia reported lower participation rates. Two
states did not provide participation rate data for students with
disabilities in a usable format. State participation rates for students
with disabilities were generally similar to participation rates for all
students. Most students with disabilities took regular reading
assessments, and relatively few students with disabilities took
alternate assessments. Two of the four states that we visited,
Massachusetts and Oregon, used innovative approaches to measure the
performance of students with disabilities, according to special
education experts. For example, Massachusetts used an alternate
assessment that lets students with widely varying abilities demonstrate
their understanding of the same content standards. Nationwide, about 5
percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the NAEP
reading assessment. Because states had different exclusion rates,
ranging from 2 percent to 10 percent in the 2002 NAEP, comparisons of
student achievement across states may have limitations.
State officials reported that providing alternate assessments was
challenging, particularly because of the time and expertise required to
design such assessments and the training necessary for teachers to
implement them. National experts and officials in the four states we
studied told us that designing and implementing alternate assessments
that measured achievement of students with disabilities was difficult
for a number of reasons, including these students' widely varying
abilities. Officials in two site-visit states also reported that they
were not using alternate assessments based on grade-level standards
because officials were unaware of models of such assessments that
appropriately measured achievement. In addition, national experts and
officials told us that teachers needed training over a period of 2 to 3
years to administer alternate assessments properly. Teachers we spoke
with told us that learning the skills to administer an alternate
assessment was time-consuming, as was administering the assessment.
Education provided support to states on including students with
disabilities in statewide assessments through actions such as
disseminating guidance, reviewing state assessment plans, awarding
grants to help states improve their assessment systems, and conducting
on-site visits. In assisting states, Education made extensive use of
its NCLBA Web site, newsletters, and presentations at national
education conferences to disseminate information on the requirements
for including students with disabilities in statewide assessments. The
department also funded two national centers that had, as part of their
focus, the assessment of students with disabilities--the National
Center on Educational Outcomes and the National Alternate Assessment
Center. However, a number of state education officials told us that
some specific information on how alternate assessments based on grade-
level standards could be used appropriately to assess students with
disabilities was lacking. Further, representatives from a national
education organization said that many states were unfamiliar with
models of this type and that examples would be helpful. In addition, we
found that Education's regulations and clarifying information did not
provide illustrative examples of what alternate assessments looked like
and how they have been used to appropriately assess students with
disabilities using grade-level or below grade-level standards. During
our review, we told Education about states' alternate assessment
concerns. In May 2005, Education announced additional efforts to help
states use alternate assessments. As part of this effort, Education
plans to develop training materials and provide comprehensive technical
assistance to states that lack alternate assessment plans for students
with disabilities. In addition, our review of Education's Web site
disclosed that information on certain topics related to the assessment
of students with disabilities was difficult to locate. For example,
there was no Web link that associated the alternate assessment
information on the NCLBA section of the Web site with related
information on the research, development, and use of these assessments
that is available on other sections of Education's Web site.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Education explore ways to
make information about inclusion of students with disabilities more
accessible on Education's Web site and work with states, particularly
those with high exclusion rates, to explore strategies to reduce the
number of students with disabilities who are excluded from the NAEP
assessment.
In comments on a draft of this report, Education officials noted that
they were taking actions that would address the recommendations in this
report. According to Education officials, the department will explore
the use of "hot buttons" and links among the Web pages maintained by
different Education offices and explore strategies for enhancing the
inclusion of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment.
Background:
Students with disabilities are a complex and diverse group. These
students can have a wide range of physical and psychological
disabilities, from severe cognitive delays or emotional disorders to
specific learning disabilities that can affect their ability to learn.
In addition, students with the same disability may demonstrate
different levels of academic aptitude and achievement. Individual
students with disabilities may demonstrate grade-level or above
achievement in some academic areas, while at the same time
demonstrating lower academic achievement in other areas. Finally,
students with disabilities may require different approaches to assess
their performance.
Two federal laws specifically require states to administer assessments
for students with disabilities: NCLBA and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) last amended in 2004. NCLBA, which
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was designed
to improve academic achievement for all students. NCLBA requires that
students with disabilities be included in statewide assessments that
are used to determine whether schools and districts meet state goals.
Further, NCLBA requires that all students, including students with
disabilities, be measured against academic achievement standards
established by the states.[Footnote 3] Specifically, NCLBA requires
annual participation in assessments in third through eighth grades and
one high school grade for reading and mathematics by the 2005-6 school
year. To be deemed as making progress, each school must show that the
school as a whole, as well as each of designated groups such as
students with disabilities, met the state proficiency goals. Schools
must also show that at least 95 percent of students in grades required
to take the test have done so.[Footnote 4] Further, schools must also
demonstrate that they have met state targets on another measure of
progress - graduation rates in high school or attendance or other
measures in elementary or middle schools.
Under NCLBA, states are required to participate in NAEP for reading and
math assessments in grades four and eight, although student
participation continues to be voluntary. The purpose of this
requirement was to use NAEP scores as confirmatory evidence about
student achievement on state tests. According to Education, confirming
state test results represented a new formal purpose for the NAEP. Also
called "The Nation's Report Card," the NAEP has been conducted
regularly since 1969. Since then, this assessment has provided a
national measure of student achievement. The NAEP can be used to track
trends in student achievement over time or to compare student
performance in a particular state with the national average. In 1996,
Education developed a new inclusion policy that provided for
accommodations allowing most students with disabilities[Footnote 5] to
participate meaningfully in the NAEP. This policy was developed in
response to increases in the numbers of students with disabilities, the
attention paid to their needs, and a corresponding demand for
information about their academic progress. Under the old policy, far
fewer students with disabilities had been included in testing.
IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs of
children with disabilities, including children with significant
cognitive disabilities. The law mandates that a free appropriate public
education be made available for all eligible children with
disabilities, requires an individualized education program[Footnote 6]
(IEP) for each student, the inclusion of students with disabilities in
state and district assessments, and requires states to provide
appropriate accommodations for students who can take the regular
assessment and to develop alternate assessments for students who cannot
participate meaningfully in the regular assessment. The IEP team, which
develops the IEP, also decides how students with disabilities
participate in assessments, either without accommodations, with
accommodations, or through alternate assessments.
Accommodations alter the way a regular assessment is administered. They
provide students with disabilities the opportunity to demonstrate their
academic achievement on a regular assessment without being impeded by
their disabilities. For example, a student may need extended time to
finish the assessment or someone to read the instructions aloud.
Another example of an accommodation is taking the assessment in a small
group setting.
Alternate assessments are designed for the relatively few students with
disabilities who are unable to participate in the regular statewide
assessment, even with appropriate accommodations. For example, a
student with the most significant cognitive and physical disabilities
may be able to communicate only through moving her eyes and blinking.
An alternate assessment for this student could include teacher
observation reports and samples of student work. Similar to the regular
assessments, NCLBA requires that alternate assessments be aligned with
the state's achievement standards. However, these assessments may be
scored against grade-level or below grade-level achievement standards.
See table 1 for examples of assessment types and achievement standards.
Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards:
Assessment type: Regular assessment without accommodations;
Achievement standard: Grade-Level;
Example: Paper and pencil assessment, i.e., the same assessment that
students without disabilities take.
Assessment type: Regular assessment with accommodations;
Achievement standard: Grade-Level;
Example: Paper and pencil assessment with extended time for test-
taking; small group or individual setting.
Assessment type: Alternate assessment;
Achievement standard: Grade- Level or below grade-level;
Example: Portfolio showing samples of student work.
Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
[End of table]
An alternate assessment based upon grade-level achievement standards
reflects the same standards as the regular assessment. For example, a
student with an emotional disability, who might do her best work while
being supervised, could solve an algebraic problem for a missing
variable that is similar to items on the regular assessment while her
teacher observed her perform the task correctly. Because the items are
similar in complexity, the alternate assessment--observing the student
performing the academic task correctly--would measure the same grade-
level achievement standard as the regular assessment. For some students
who could not be accommodated on the regular assessment, this method
allows them to demonstrate their knowledge of grade-level academic
content.
An alternate assessment based upon below grade-level achievement
standards reflects standards that are less complex than those on the
regular assessment. In contrast to a student solving an algebraic
problem for a missing variable, a student with a cognitive disability
could determine which coin is missing from a set of coins while his
teacher records his efforts on a videotape. For some students, the
alternate assessment allows them to demonstrate their knowledge of
academic content at their individual developmental levels. Education's
guidance states that these below grade-level standards are appropriate
only for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The
guidance placed no limit on the number of students that could be
assessed against these standards. Under NCLBA, states and districts can
count the proficient scores of students taking assessments with below
grade-level standards as meeting state achievement goals provided the
number of these students does not exceed 1 percent of all
students.[Footnote 7]
In addition, Education announced a new policy in April 2005 allowing
states additional flexibility in assessing some students with
disabilities--those who are not significantly cognitively disabled, but
face considerable challenges in their academic development. For
example, some students with disabilities may be 3 to 5 years behind
their peers academically. The additional flexibility allows states to
assess more students using less complex or below grade-level
achievement standards. Further, qualified states were allowed to count
the scores of these students as meeting state achievement goals, as
long as the number of proficient scores for these students did not
exceed 2 percent of all students.
Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Reading
Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year:
Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading
assessments in the 2003-04 school year. Students with disabilities were
usually included in the regular reading assessments and sometimes were
included in alternate assessments. Two states that we visited,
Massachusetts and Oregon, had developed innovative approaches to
including students with disabilities in statewide assessments.
According to Education, 5 percent of students with disabilities were
excluded from the NAEP, but state exclusion rates varied. This was in
part because the assessment does not allow accommodations that are
permitted on some statewide assessments.
Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Reading Assessments,
and Participation Rates Were Similar to Those of Nondisabled Students:
Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading
assessments in the 2003-04 school year according to state reports to
Education[Footnote 8]. Forty-one states reported that they met NCLBA's
participation requirement by having at least 95 percent of students
with disabilities participate in statewide reading assessments. Seven
states and the District of Columbia reported participation rates below
95 percent for students with disabilities. Two states did not provide
participation rate data for students with disabilities in a usable
format. The participation requirement is part of what is considered to
determine whether states, districts, and schools demonstrate adequate
yearly progress. There are programmatic implications for not
demonstrating progress goals. Two states, Indiana and Michigan, did not
provide these data in a form that we could report. Figure 1 presents
the distribution of participation rates on statewide assessments.
Figure 1: Distribution of State and the District of Columbia
Participation Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04
School Year:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Two states did not provide data on students with disabilities in
a usable format, and one of these states did not provide data for all
students in a usable format.
[End of figure]
State participation rates for students with disabilities were generally
similar to those for all students. Most states reported that an equal
or slightly higher percentage of the total student population
participated in statewide assessments compared to students with
disabilities. Differences in the participation rates were usually
minor. Connecticut, Georgia, and Oklahoma reported that the
participation rate among students with disabilities in statewide
reading assessments was higher than among all students. An official in
one state said that the state had made efforts to boost the
participation rate of students with disabilities, including issuing
state guidance and holding regional workshops. The official also said
that, because students with disabilities are a small subset of the
state's student population, it is easier to boost participation among
students with disabilities than among all students. Participation rate
data by state can be found in appendix I.
Most Students with Disabilities Were Included in Regular Reading
Assessments, and Relatively Few Were Included through Alternate
Assessments:
In 49 states and the District of Columbia, most students with
disabilities who were tested in the 2003-04 school year were included
through regular reading assessments. In over two-thirds of these
states, more than 90 percent of students with disabilities were
included in the regular reading assessment. In the four site-visit
states, most students with disabilities were included in the regular
reading assessment.
In three of the four site-visit states, the majority of students with
disabilities who were included through regular reading assessments
received accommodations in the 2003-04 year. These data ranged from 58
percent in Florida to 89 percent in Massachusetts. Data from one state
that we visited, Florida, showed that additional time and other
scheduling changes and changes of setting were the most frequent
accommodations. Although the other 2 states did not provide data on the
most frequently used accommodations, small group settings and extended
time were the most frequent accommodations on the NAEP reading
assessment which reflects the accommodations students receive in
statewide assessment systems.
Alternate reading assessments with grade-level standards were used by
nine states. In six of these states, less than 10 percent of students
with disabilities were included in these assessments. In the other
three states, 14 percent to 21 percent of students with disabilities
were included in these assessments. Two of the four states that we
visited, Massachusetts and Oregon, reported including students with
disabilities in alternate reading assessments that measured grade-level
standards. For information about the percentage of students included in
this type of assessment, see figure 2. For state-by-state use of
different types of assessments, see appendix I.
Alternate reading assessments with below grade-level standards were
used by 49 states and the District of Columbia. In most of these states
less than 10 percent of students with disabilities were included in
these assessments. However, Texas included 60 percent of students with
disabilities in alternate assessments that measured below grade-level
standards.[Footnote 9] Officials in Hawaii, the only state that did not
include any students in this type of assessment, reported that the
state is developing an alternate assessment that measures below grade-
level standards. All four states that we visited reported including
students with disabilities in these assessments. For information about
the percentage of students included in this type of assessment, see
figure 2.
Figure 2: Distribution of States and the District of Columbia by the
Percentages of Students with Disabilities Who Received Alternate
Assessments Measuring Grade-Level and Below Grade-Level Standards in
the 2003-04 School Year:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia offered alternate
reading assessments that measured below grade-level standards and nine
states offered alternate assessments that measured grade-level
standards. Only these states are included in this figure. Mississippi's
alternate assessment measuring alternate standards was included in the
10-19 category.
[End of figure]
We examined data in Florida and Massachusetts to determine the
relationship between the disability and type of assessment
used.[Footnote 10] About 40 percent of autistic students received
alternate assessments in Massachusetts, the highest of any type of
disability. Students with physical disabilities had the highest
percentage of students receiving regular assessments without
accommodations in Massachusetts. In Florida, over 60 percent of
students with autism received alternate assessments measuring below
grade-level standards. Table 2 shows assessment data based on
disability type for Massachusetts.
Table 2: Massachusetts' Data on How Students with Different Types of
Disabilities Were Included in Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-
04 School Year:
English/Language arts (tested in grades 3, 4, 7, 10):
Disability Type: Intellectual;
Enrollment: 4,046;
Regular assessment: 4%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 66%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 28%.
Disability Type: Sensory/Hearing;
Enrollment: 327;
Regular assessment: 10%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 81%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 8%.
Disability Type: Communication;
Enrollment: 5,659;
Regular assessment: 21%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 77%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 1%.
Disability Type: Sensory/Vision;
Enrollment: 135;
Regular assessment: 12%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 78%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 10%.
Disability Type: Emotional;
Enrollment: 4,126;
Regular assessment: 10%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 85%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 2%.
Disability Type: Physical;
Enrollment: 310;
Regular assessment: 33%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 58%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 8%.
Disability Type: Health;
Enrollment: 2,145;
Regular assessment: 10%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 88%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 1%.
Disability Type: Specific learning;
Enrollment: 24,979;
Regular assessment: 9%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 90%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 1%.
Disability Type: Sensory/Deaf-Blindness;
Enrollment: 102;
Regular assessment: 6%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 68%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 25%.
Disability Type: Multiple disabilities;
Enrollment: 1,504;
Regular assessment: 6%;
English/ Language arts (tested in grades 3, 4, 7, 10): Regular
assessment with accommodations: 61%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 31%.
Disability Type: Autism;
Enrollment: 1,272;
Regular assessment: 6%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 53%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 40%.
Disability Type: Neurological;
Enrollment: 1,513;
Regular assessment: 11%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 83%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 5%.
Disability Type: Developmental delay;
Enrollment: 1,648;
Regular assessment: 13%;
Regular assessment with accommodations: 76%;
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 10%.
Source: Massachusetts Department of Education.
Note: Massachusetts data did not show whether the alternate assessments
measured grade-level or below grade-level standards. Very few students
in the state received alternate assessments that measured grade-level
achievement standards.
[End of table]
Few differences existed in how students were included in assessments
based on their year in school according to data from the two states we
visited that provided data. In both Massachusetts and Iowa, a similar
percentage of students were given accommodations and alternate
assessments across several different grade levels.
Massachusetts and Oregon Used Innovative Approaches to Assess the
Performance of Students with Disabilities:
Two of the four states that we visited, Massachusetts and Oregon, used
what experts described as innovative assessment approaches to measure
the performance of students with disabilities. Massachusetts developed
an alternate assessment system that can measure grade-level and below
grade-level standards. State officials have developed a resource guide
that details the alignment between the curriculum and achievement
standards. For each content area, the state has identified a
progression of increasingly rigorous standards, with grade-level
standards as the most rigorous, through which students can demonstrate
knowledge of the same content. The performance of all students is
measured with the same content, but the progression of standards let
students with widely varying abilities demonstrate their understanding
of the content.
Figure 3: Example of How a Below Grade-Level Standard Differs in
Complexity from a Grade-Level Standard:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Oregon's assessment allows all students, disabled and nondisabled, to
use certain accommodations when taking the regular assessment. This is
considered innovative because it recognizes that any student may need
accommodations, regardless of whether they have recognized
disabilities, and offers them certain accommodations, such as changes
in test settings or timing. In this way, students with and without
disabilities are not considered differently in their use of
accommodations.
Nationwide 5 Percent of Students with Disabilities Are Excluded from
NAEP, but State Exclusion Rates Varied:
The NAEP began offering students with disabilities accommodations in
1996, and some of the more commonly used accommodations included
extended time to complete the assessment, testing in small-group
sessions, and reading the directions aloud. Other accommodations
included, for example, explanation of directions, scribes, large print,
and the use of word processors or similar devices.
NAEP has provided some accommodations, but nationwide about 5 percent
of students with disabilities have been excluded from the assessment.
Education officials discussed several reasons students with
disabilities were excluded from the assessment including: (1) the
student had such a severe disability that the student could not
meaningfully participate; (2) the principal and the IEP team decided
that the student should not participate; and (3) the student's IEP
required that the student be tested with accommodations that NAEP does
not allow. At the state level, the percentage of students with
disabilities who were excluded varied in 2002. For example, over 10
percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the 2002 NAEP
reading assessment in three states, and only 2 percent to 3 percent of
students with disabilities were excluded in a handful of other states.
According to Education officials, the inclusion of students with
disabilities in the NAEP assessments is affected by sampling issues as
well as by the limitations of accommodations that are appropriate for
the content covered by the NAEP.
Research suggests that NAEP results for some states may be affected by
exclusion rates. A 2003 report commissioned by Education found that
different state exclusion rates affected NAEP's rankings of states on
student reading achievement. One purpose of the NAEP is to provide a
basis for comparing states, each of which has its own standards and
assessment system. These state rankings are often used by states and
other organizations to compare states and determine how well states are
educating their students. Additionally, state rankings are viewed by
parents and state and local officials as important indicators of the
quality of their states' education systems. The report examined how
state rankings would change under two different assumptions about how
excluded students would have performed on the assessment if they had
been included. The report found that state rankings changed for over
half of the states on both the fourth and eighth grade NAEP with both
assumptions. In one scenario, two states fell 6 places and one state
fell 7 places in the state rankings.[Footnote 11]
In addition, a 2003 report that was commissioned by the National
Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan body appointed
by Education, concluded that changes in state achievement on the NAEP
between 1998 and 2002 could be partially explained by changes in
exclusion rates. Changes in state results on the NAEP are frequently
used by states and researchers to gauge which states have successfully
raised student achievement. The study examined the 36 states that
participated in both the 1998 and 2002 NAEP reading assessments. The
report concluded that "a substantial portion of variation in states'
achievement score changes can be accounted for by changes in their
rates of exclusion.[Footnote 12] A report released by Education, the
2002 NAEP Report Card, found similar associations and said that there
is a moderate tendency for exclusion rates to be associated with
achievement gains but that exclusion rates do not entirely explain
score gains.[Footnote 13]
Some students with disabilities are excluded from the NAEP because it
does not allow some accommodations that are permitted by on statewide
assessments. Education officials said that certain accommodations would
interfere with the NAEP's measurement of the knowledge being assessed.
For instance, in the reading assessment, reading the passage and
questions aloud to a student was not permitted because the assessment
is intended to measure the student's ability to read the written word
as well as understand the meaning of the passage. Education officials
also said that some accommodations could not be administered with the
assessment for logistical reasons. For example, extending testing over
several days was not allowed because NAEP testing administrators are in
each school only one day. Education has not developed alternate
assessments for the NAEP. Table 3 lists accommodations that are allowed
on some statewide assessments but not on the NAEP.
Table 3: Accommodations Provided in Some Regular Statewide Assessments
but Not for NAEP:
Braille edition of assessment[A].
Audio tape administration of assessment.
Calculator.
Abacus.
Arithmetic tables.
Graph paper.
Responses in native primary language.
Thesaurus.
Spelling and grammar checking software and devices.
Signing directions or answers.
Extending sessions over multiple days.
Source: National Center for Education Statistics and interviews with
Education officials.
Note: See National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Inclusion
Policy, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp (June
3, 2005).
[A] The NAEP does not provide a Braille edition of the assessment but
does allow states to provide a Braille edition at their own expense.
[End of table]
Another reason why states' exclusion rates for could vary on NAEP may
relate to state policies and requirements regarding student
participation of students with disabilities. Although states are
required to participate in the NAEP, student participation in this
assessment is voluntary. Whether students with disabilities take the
NAEP depends primarily on the recommendation of the student's IEP team,
along with the availability of appropriate accommodations. Team
decision criteria could vary across states, leading to differences in
exclusion rates.
Education officials said they are implementing a new policy for how
students with disabilities should be included in the NAEP assessment
that will reduce variability in the inclusion of students with
disabilities. Previously, the student's IEP team and principal had to
decide whether a student could participate in the NAEP assessment,
leaving room for interpretation. The new policy will require schools to
include students in the NAEP assessment if the students took the
regular statewide assessments (with or without accommodations) and the
students' IEPs do not specify that they be provided accommodations that
NAEP does not allow. In addition, the new policy will require schools
to include students with disabilities who took the state's alternate
assessment, if the school believes that the students can participate
meaningfully in the NAEP assessment. The new policy will first be used
with the 2006 NAEP assessments.
States Faced Challenges in Designing and Preparing Teachers to
Administer Alternate Assessments:
States faced challenges in designing alternate assessments (for grade-
and below grade-level standards) and helping teachers to administer
them for this small group of students with widely varying abilities.
Officials from the four states we studied in depth, assessment
companies, and national education organizations told us that designing
and implementing alternate assessments that measured student
achievement on state standards was difficult. These officials also told
us that special education teachers needed training over a period of up
to 3 years to administer alternate assessments properly.
National Education Organizations and Some State Officials Reported
Difficulties Designing Alternate Assessments:
Designing alternate assessments posed difficulties, in part because of
states' inexperience with these types of assessments. Education
officials and representatives from national education organizations
told us that many states did not begin to design alternate assessments
until required to do so by IDEA 1997 for the 2000-01 school year.
Education officials noted that states' alternate assessments generally
had not been aligned to state standards. Specifically, many states
designed their alternate assessments to measure functional skills, such
as using public transportation independently, rather than academic
achievement. Consequently, designing alternate assessments that
measured academic achievement was relatively new for many
states.[Footnote 14]
Widely Varying Abilities of Students with Disabilities:
The widely varying abilities of students was identified by experts and
officials as a key factor that made designing alternate assessments to
measure academic achievement challenging. For example, some students
with significant cognitive disabilities can communicate verbally or
through using technology such as boards with pictures to which the
student can point, while others can communicate only through moving
their eyes or blinking. Further, some students may best show their
achievement through working with their teacher, while others have the
ability to create work samples independently. Still other students may
be able to take portions of the regular assessment in one subject, but
require a different approach for another subject. National assessment
and education experts told us that measuring these students'
achievement often required an individualized approach.
Design Process Took Time:
Efforts to design alternate assessments that measured academic
achievement as required by NCLBA took about 3 years, according to
federal education officials and assessment experts. The process for
designing alternate assessments involved a number of steps and
decisions, such as choosing a format and revising or modifying
assessments. In the four states we studied, two offered the portfolio
format as their alternate assessment, and the other two offered a
number of options, including the portfolio. See table 4 for a
description of these assessments.
Table 4: Selected Alternate Assessments Used in Study States and
Descriptions:
Alternate assessments: Portfolio;
Achievement standard: Grade-Level or below grade-level achievement;
Description: A collection of student work gathered to demonstrate
student performance on specific skills and knowledge, generally linked
to state content standards. Portfolio contents are individualized and
may include, among other evidence, samples of student work, test
results, and video records of student performance.
Alternate assessments: Performance assessment;
Achievement standard: Grade-Level or below grade-level achievement;
Description: A direct measure of student skills or knowledge, usually
in a one-on-one assessment. These can be highly structured, requiring a
teacher or assessment administrator to give students specific items or
tasks, similar to regular assessments or based on student needs.
Alternate assessments: Out of level assessment;
Achievement standard: Below grade-level achievement;
Description: A regular assessment for a lower grade level.
Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
[End of table]
Creating alignment between these assessments and the curriculum and
achievement standards, as required by NCLBA, was challenging and labor
intensive, according to officials in our study states, representatives
from national education organizations, and assessment experts.
Specifically, the curriculum should include subject matter outlined in
the achievement standards, and the alternate assessment should properly
determine whether students have mastered the standards. For example, if
the standard were to understand written English, the curriculum might
include reading and understanding grade-level text. An alternate
assessment with below grade-level standards might include a student
reading one-or two-word items and matching them to familiar people,
places, or things. Because states generally had not designed alternate
assessments nor assessed students with disabilities on academic
achievement before 2000, aligning standards with alternate assessments
was relatively new. Further, alignment was difficult because of the
need to provide a way for students with widely varying abilities to
display their achievement.
Individualized and Standardized Assessments and Reliability of
Assessments:
Further, officials explained that it can be difficult to reconcile the
need to administer individualized assessments under IDEA and the need
to provide standardized assessments under NCLBA for these students.
These concerns were also reflected in a recent report on NCLBA from a
national education organization.[Footnote 15] Specifically,
standardized alternate assessments may not be appropriate for all
students who need an alternate assessment because they may not be
flexible enough to accommodate all students' abilities. However,
experts and officials noted that individualized assessments, such as
portfolios, can also present challenges. For example, because
individualized assessment approaches often rely heavily on the
participation of the person administering the assessment, that person
can affect how students demonstrate their performance. Teachers may
select work samples that demonstrate exceptional performance of their
student, even though the student does not typically perform that well.
Officials in one state told us that a team of education officials
determined that their alternate assessment needed to be more reliable
in both implementation and scoring, a sentiment shared by officials and
teachers in other states as well. Scoring in the states we studied was
done by the student's teacher, teachers from other districts, or
officials from the local education agency. Officials in the state in
which teachers score their own students said that no independent
reviews determined whether the scores were accurate or unbiased, and
teachers from two other states told us that scores for similar
portfolios sometimes varied.
Start-Up Issues and Ongoing Costs:
A number of states used advisory committees to help them design their
alternate assessments, according to assessment experts and state
officials. These committees can be composed of experts in the field of
assessment, and they provide guidance to state officials. For example,
officials in one state told us that a series of three advisory
committees helped them make decisions about their alternate assessment,
including its format. Officials in another state told us that they met
with a working group for 2 years in preparation for assessing students
with disabilities on alternate assessments. Information reported by
officials in all states to Education for the 2003-4 school year
indicated that many states are currently revising or modifying their
alternate assessments.
Officials in two of the four states also reported that they were not
using alternate assessments based on grade-level standards because they
were unaware of models that appropriately measured achievement.
National assessment and education experts said that education officials
from many states had expressed similar views. In two of the four states
we studied not using these assessments, some local officials told us
that they would like to use this assessment option.
Finally, assessment experts and state officials told us that designing
and implementing these assessments was costly for this small group of
students. They also said that there were start-up costs in addition to
the annual cost for implementation. For example, officials in one state
we studied estimated that they spent approximately $591,000 in the
first year of implementation. These costs included designing the
assessment, training teachers to administer the assessments and
training scorers to score the assessments. These officials told us that
costs have decreased to approximately $164,000 in the third year of
implementation. Assessment experts estimated that the annual cost for
alternate assessments per student ranged from $75 to $400, compared
with $5 to $20 for regular assessments. A prior GAO report[Footnote 16]
similarly associated lower costs with assessments scored by machine--a
paper and pencil test with answers marked on a bubble sheet--and
greater costs for assessments scored by people, as alternate
assessments often are.
Extensive Training and Implementation Posed Challenge for Teachers:
Teachers responsible for administering alternate assessments needed
training on the use, administration, and scoring of these assessments-
-which could take 2 years to 3 years plus some ongoing training--
according to federal and state officials, as well as education and
assessment experts. Assessing students with disabilities was a
relatively new role for veteran teachers and different from overseeing
a classroom of students for regular assessments during class time. In
addition, new teachers needed additional training because they had
limited course work on assessment issues in their teacher preparation
programs. Assessment experts and officials in the states we studied
told us that these programs generally provided one course in
assessment, but that the course did not provide enough training in how
to administer alternate assessments, interpret results, or use results
to improve their instruction. Teachers needed to become familiar with
these assessments, including portfolio assessments, which may involve
many hours of creating, compiling, and documenting samples of student
work both during and outside of class.[Footnote 17] Further, some
ongoing refresher training was needed, particularly when alternate
assessments were modified from year to year and when teachers did not
administer alternate assessments every year.
Special education teachers also needed to learn the regular academic
curriculum and state standards upon which alternate assessments are
based. Historically, special education teachers had little exposure to
this curriculum and its associated standards because they have taught
functional skills, such as shopping independently in stores. Officials
in one state told us that their teachers faced a learning curve to
become familiar with the academic curriculum and how to create
appropriate ways for their students to access that curriculum. For
example, the grade-level curriculum might teach students to determine
the meaning of unknown words from their context for the fourth grade
reading assessment. A special education teacher would need to learn the
grade-level curriculum and then match a student's skills with an
appropriate task to demonstrate mastery for the student's individual
level. For example, a highly functioning special education student
might demonstrate mastery by using a dictionary to determine the
meaning of unknown words. A student with significant cognitive
disabilities might demonstrate mastery by associating a picture with a
familiar object, action, or event.
Finally, despite the challenges of implementing alternate assessments,
teachers and state officials shared success stories for students with
disabilities. For example, officials who developed a guide matching
grade-level and below grade-level standards told us that this
investment was worthwhile because it helped teachers become better
teachers by identifying a progression of standards for students with
disabilities to access grade-level academic curriculum. In addition,
officials in some states noted that it was valuable that special
education teachers were encouraged to teach academic curriculum to
students with significant cognitive disabilities under NCLBA. Teachers
told us many stories of student achievement, which exceeded their
expectations. For example, one teacher described teaching the
difference between sweet and sour to a student with severe and multiple
disabilities. The student, after tasting both, consistently signaled
"sweet" by looking toward the sweet item repeatedly when asked which
she preferred. Experts, officials and teachers were generally positive
about raising academic expectations for students with disabilities and
attributed this directly to NCLBA.
Education Disseminated Information to States on Assessing Students with
Disabilities, but Some State Officials Reported the Need for Alternate
Assessment Examples:
Education's efforts to help states implement assessment requirements
for students with disabilities included a variety of activities.
However, state officials said that additional information, such as
examples of alternate assessments, would be helpful. We presented
states' concerns to Education in March 2005. Education announced in May
2005 that it was developing guidance and planned to provide
comprehensive technical assistance to states on this topic as early as
the Fall of 2005. We also found that it was difficult to locate
assessment information on Education's Web site because there was no Web
link that associated the alternate assessment information on the site's
NCLBA section with related information on the research, development,
and use of these assessments that is available on other sections of the
site.
Education Provided Many Types of Assistance, but Officials Said
Examples of Alternate Assessment Approaches Would Be Helpful:
Education provided a broad range of assistance to help states implement
assessment requirements for students with disabilities, such as
disseminating guidance that included technical information on alternate
assessments, reviewing state assessment plans, awarding grants to help
states improve their assessment systems, and conducting on-site
visits.[Footnote 18] Further, Education has conducted outreach efforts
to states to communicate the requirements for the inclusion of students
with disabilities under NCLBA and to improve state data systems to
ensure they capture the true achievement and participation of students
in these assessments. For example, the department's Office of Special
Education Program' Regional Resource Centers and other technical
assistance projects have collaborated with states through
teleconferences, preconference training sessions, and by providing
technical assistance materials and resources. Education also made
extensive use of its NCLBA Web site, newsletters, and attendance at
national education-related conferences to disseminate guidance to
states on NCLBA's assessment requirements for all students, including
students with disabilities.
The department also funded two national centers that had, as part of
their focus, the assessment of students with disabilities--the National
Center on Educational Outcomes and the National Alternate Assessment
Center. The National Center on Educational Outcomes examined the
participation of students in national and statewide assessments,
including the use of accommodations and alternate assessments and
conducted research in the area of assessment and accountability. In
addition, the National Alternate Assessment Center established
principles of technical soundness for alternate assessments and
techniques for aligning alternate assessments with grade-level content
standards.
Despite Education's efforts to assist states in this area, experts and
some state officials identified challenges in designing and
implementing alternate assessments. As noted above, many states had
limited experience with these assessments. Representatives from a
national education organization and officials in two of the four study
states, specifically the two states not using these assessments, said
that they did not know how alternate assessments that measured grade-
level standards would look, and that examples would be helpful.
Further, only nine states reported using these assessments in the 2003-
04 school year. According to Education officials, the department has
made information on alternate assessments available during
preconference workshops at national education-related conferences and
through the National Center on Educational Outcomes' Web site.
Education officials also reported that the department participated with
state officials in a group including state officials and national
education experts that discussed and researched alternate assessments.
However, information provided to state officials often included brief
descriptions of alternate assessments but not illustrative examples to
help states. In March 2005, we told Education about states' alternate
assessment concerns. In May 2005, Education announced additional
efforts to help states use alternate assessments. Under these efforts,
which are being conducted by a department task force and funded by $5
million from the department's Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Education plans to provide comprehensive
technical assistance to states that lack alternate assessment plans as
early as the fall of 2005. According to Education officials, plans for
providing assistance to states in this area were still being developed.
As a result, we were unable to review Education's plans, and the extent
to which the department's efforts will address states' concerns about
alternate assessments is unknown.
Information on Assessment of Students with Disabilities Not Easily
Located on Education's Web Site:
According to Education officials, information concerning the inclusion
of students with disabilities in statewide assessments has been
primarily disseminated through the department's Web site. Our review of
Education's Web site, however, disclosed that certain information on
the development and use of alternate assessment for students with
disabilities was difficult to locate. For example, the NCLBA section of
Education's Web site provided extensive information about the
regulatory requirements for alternate assessments. However, information
on the research, development, and use of these assessments was
generally accessed through a series of non-assessment-related Internet
links on the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) section of
Education's Web site. Moreover, there was no Web link that associated
the alternate assessment information on the NCLBA section of the Web
site with related information on the OSEP section of the Web site. In
addition, accessing alternate assessment information on the OSEP Web
site was complicated because it required the user to have a working
knowledge of OSEP's programs, knowledge that some statewide assessment
officials may not have.
Conclusions:
NCLBA seeks to make fundamental changes in public education by
challenging federal, state, and local education officials to improve
student performance. In particular, NCLBA focused attention on the
academic performance of all students, requiring that the performance of
groups, such as students with disabilities, be considered in
determining whether schools meet state goals. IDEA has also emphasized
the importance of assessing the academic achievement of students with
disabilities. Education has provided much guidance to states on how to
include students with disabilities in statewide assessment systems.
Despite their efforts, some state and local officials as well as
national organization representatives reported they lacked alternate
assessment examples or models, particularly at grade-level standards,
and were uncertain about how to design and implement them. This
uncertainty may have contributed to some states not using alternate
assessments with grade-level standards. As a result, some students with
disabilities may not have been provided the most appropriate type of
assessment to measure their achievement. In May 2005, Education
announced additional efforts to help states use alternate assessments.
According to Education officials, plans for providing assistance to
states in this area were still being developed. As a result, we were
unable to review Education's plans, and the extent to which the
department's effort will address states' concerns about alternate
assessments is unknown.
Given that Education has relied heavily on its Web site to provide
information on assessing children with disabilities and our finding
that this information was not very accessible, the effectiveness of
this communication may be limited. As a result, state and local
officials may not have all the necessary information available to guide
decisions about appropriately including students with disabilities in
statewide assessments.
Finally, NCLBA requires that students, including those with
disabilities, periodically participate in the NAEP to gain a national
picture of student achievement. Although most students with
disabilities participated in the NAEP, the percent of students who were
excluded from the assessment varied across the states. Consequently,
the results of this assessment may not fully reflect student
achievement, thus comparisons of student achievement across states may
have limitations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Education take the following two
actions to increase the participation of students with disabilities in
assessments.
We recommend that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the
information on the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide
assessments more accessible to users of its Web site. Specifically,
information on the NCLBA section of Education's Web site concerning
alternate assessment requirements for students with disabilities should
be linked to information on the research, development, and use of these
assessments that is available on other sections of Education's Web
site.
Finally, we recommend that the Secretary of Education work with states,
particularly those with high exclusion rates, to explore strategies to
reduce the number of students with disabilities who are excluded from
the NAEP assessment.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.
In their letter, Education officials noted that they were taking
actions that would address the recommendations in this report. For
example, in response to the first recommendation, the department will
explore the use of "hot buttons" and links among the Web pages
maintained by different Education offices to further increase access to
information regarding the assessment of students with disabilities.
Similarly, in response to the second recommendation, Education
officials acknowledged that there is still much work to be done in
increasing the participation and inclusion rates of students with
disabilities in the NAEP assessment. As part of this effort, the
department is exploring strategies for enhancing the inclusion of
students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment.
We have also included some additional information the department
provided to us on outreach and technical assistance efforts on the
assessment of students with disabilities and how students with
disabilities participated in the NAEP. Education officials also
provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report where
appropriate. Education's written comments are reproduced in appendix
II.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education,
relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be made available at no charge on GAOís Web site at
http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me on (202)512-7215 or at shaulm@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Other contacts and major contributors
are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in
State Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year, by
State:
Alabama;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
94.6%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
86%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 76%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 18%.
Alaska;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
97%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
4%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Arizona;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
9%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Arkansas;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
97%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
90%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
California;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
8%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Colorado;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 2%.
Connecticut;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
96%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 82%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
18%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Delaware;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
District of Columbia;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
93%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
86%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Florida;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98%[B];
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
96%[B];
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 88%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
12%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Georgia;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
92.9%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Hawaii;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 97%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 3%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
0%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Idaho;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
4%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 2%.
Illinois;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Indiana;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
[C];
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
5%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Iowa;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
4%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Kansas;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 73%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 21%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Kentucky;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Louisiana;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99[A];
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 83%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
17%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Maine;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Maryland;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
9%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Massachusetts;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: < 1%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Michigan;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
[C];
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
[C];
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 65%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
35%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Minnesota;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
97%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
95%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 88%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
12%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Mississippi;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 89%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
9-12%[D];
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Missouri;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
1%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Montana;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Nebraska;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
4%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Nevada;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98[A];
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
97%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 97%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
3%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
New Hampshire;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
5%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
New Jersey;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
97%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
5%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
New Mexico;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
97%[A];
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
94%[A];
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
5%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
New York;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98%[A];
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
93%[A];
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 89%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 1%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
4%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 6%.
North Carolina;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 87%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 9%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
3%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
North Dakota;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
8%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Ohio;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
5%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Oklahoma;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 84%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
16%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Oregon;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 76%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 14%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
9%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Pennsylvania;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Rhode Island;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 97%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
3%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
South Carolina;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 88%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
3%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 9%.
South Dakota;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Tennessee;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
8%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Texas;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
94.6%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
77%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 39%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
60%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 1%.
Utah;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
97%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
95%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: < 1%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
7%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Vermont;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 74%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 20%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Virginia;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
97%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
8%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Washington;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
West Virginia;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
4%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Wisconsin;
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: < 1%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
9%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Wyoming[E];
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams:
100%;
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams:
99%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
regular reading assessments[A]: 98%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%;
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]:
6%;
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported
or missing[A]: 0%.
Source: GAO analysis; State consolidated performance reports to
Education.
Note: Figures rounded to the nearest whole number, except in cases
where rounding would have made numbers appear inconsistent with other
sections of the report.
[A] Calculated by GAO from state data.
[B] Florida does not calculate participation rate separately for
reading and for mathematics. The information included in this table is
the participation rate for reading and mathematics combined.
[C] Did not provide usable data:
[D] Mississippi reported a range for this figure.
[E] Sum of the number of students with disabilities participating in
the three different types of reading assessments was greater than
figure the state provided for the total number of students
participating in reading assessments.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
June 30, 2005:
Ms. Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Shaul:
We are writing in response to your request for comments on the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO-05-618), dated
July 2005, and entitled "No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with
Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion
Options Could Be Improved." As the first half of the draft report title
indicates, States, school districts and schools have made significant
progress in including students with disabilities in State academic
assessments and, with the assistance of the U.S. Department of
Education (the Department), have developed assessments and
accommodations, to ensure that the legal requirements for inclusion of
students with disabilities are met. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the draft report and provide insight on actions the
Department is taking to improve the assessment of students with
disabilities.
Our nation is giving an unprecedented and high level of attention to
the meaningful inclusion of all students with disabilities in academic
achievement assessments. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) expanded
the alternate assessment and assessment accommodations requirements
established under the Improving America's Schools Act in 1994, and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997. The Department's
Title I standards and assessment regulations require that all reading/
language arts and mathematics assessments used for accountability,
including alternate assessments, meet the same rigorous technical
quality, alignment, inclusion, and reporting standards. Because the law
now requires inclusion of the test scores of students with disabilities
in school, district, and State accountability determinations, States,
districts, and schools can no longer exclude students from receiving
access to the general curriculum, or from determinations that establish
if a school or district is preparing students adequately for their
future. With the implementation of NCLBA, we have an assurance that all
students' academic performance counts, including students with
disabilities.
Regarding the recommendations contained in the draft report, we are
providing the following responses:
GAO Recommendation 1: The Secretary of Education [should] explore ways
to make the information on the inclusion of students with disabilities
in statewide assessments more accessible to users of its Web site.
Specifically, information on the NCLBA section of Education's Web site
concerning alternate assessment requirements for students with
disabilities should be linked to information on the research,
development, and use of these assessments that is available on other
sections of Education's Web site.
Through the Web pages of the Department's various offices --including
the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services --the Department's Web site offers helpful information
regarding the assessment of students with disabilities. To further
increase the public's access to this information, the Department will
explore establishing "hot buttons" and links among the Web pages
maintained by our different offices. In addition to using the World
Wide Web to disseminate information, the Department engages in ongoing
outreach efforts to provide direct technical assistance to States. As a
result, our nation is seeing the highest level of inclusion of students
with disabilities in State academic assessments since inclusion became
a statutory requirement.
The Department collaborates extensively with States regarding the
inclusion of students with disabilities in the assessments required by
NCLBA. The Department's outreach communicates the requirements for
student inclusion in the assessments under NCLBA, which have
contributed significantly to the increased participation rates cited in
the GAO draft report showing that students with disabilities are being
included in the academic assessment for most States at levels at or
above those targeted by the NCLBA statute. The Department's outreach
also includes working with States to improve their data systems to
ensure they capture the true achievement and participation of students.
For example, the seven States noted with inclusion rates below 95
percent have already begun to address their data management and
documentation systems to more accurately report the participation rates
for students in the required State academic assessments used for
accountability.
The Department's outreach is reflected by participation of our staff in
meetings with State directors of special education, assessment and
Title 1; collaboration with the National Center for Educational
Outcomes (NCEO), and the National Alternate Assessment Center (NAAC);
and participation in Council of Chief State School Officers' (CCSSO)
State collaborative quarterly meetings, which include collaboratives
that focus on special education assessment, technical issues in large
scale assessment, accountability systems reporting, and comprehensive
assessment systems. These State collaboratives include representatives
from 49 States, DC, Puerto Rico and several of the outlying areas. The
Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP) Regional Resource Centers
and other OSEP technical assistance projects also collaborate with
States via teleconferences, pre-conference training sessions, and by
providing technical assistance materials and resources. Additionally,
since April 7, 2005, our Web site has included a Plan of Action letter
for outreach to States to include students with disabilities who would
benefit from the opportunity to be assessed using an assessment
instrument that is aligned with a State's academic content standards
and with modified academic achievement standards.
While the draft report does not address Department outreach, the
inclusion of these activities in the report would provide a more
complete picture of our efforts to disseminate reliable information to
States.
GAO Recommendation 2: The Secretary of Education [should] work with
states, particularly those with high exclusion rates, to explore
strategies to reduce the number of students with disabilities who are
excluded from the NAEP assessment.
We appreciate GAO's recommendation that the Department work with States
to explore strategies to include more students with disabilities in the
NAEP assessments. After NCLBA was signed into law, the Department's
National Center for Education Statistics contracted with each State
educational agency to fund a NAEP coordinator for the State. These
coordinators assist with many activities related to the NAEP State
assessments, including assistance with briefing State and local
educators and parents about NAEP's inclusion and accommodation
procedures.
We do need to point out that NAEP cannot include all students with
disabilities, although the recommendation could be read to suggest
otherwise. For example, NAEP is conducted only in regular graded
schools and not in special schools for students with disabilities, such
as schools for the blind. In addition, NAEP does not conduct alternate
assessments for students whose disabilities are too severe to allow
them to take the regular assessments, nor does NAEP permit all of the
accommodations that are allowed in some States. For example, NAEP does
not permit reading the reading assessment aloud to students with
disabilities because NAEP tests a student's ability to read printed
English. Your report should thus reflect that NAEP assessments are
different from State academic assessments and that the inclusion of
students with disabilities in NAEP assessments is affected by sampling
issues as well as by the limitations of accommodations that are
appropriate for the content covered by NAEP.
Inclusion rates for students with disabilities improved dramatically
for NAEP over the last decade, as NCES supported research on the
effects of accommodations on test performance and the comparability of
assessment results. NAEP now provides a range of accommodations that
were not available in earlier assessments. In addition, the variation
in exclusion rates among States is declining. More States are including
more students with disabilities in NAEP assessments. We expect to see
States including even more students with disabilities in the future
because of a policy recently adopted by the National Assessment
Governing Board (NAGB) with regard to the criteria to be used by
schools in determining whether a student should participate in NAEP
assessments. Through the 2005 assessments, NAEP policy required that
schools include students in NAEP unless the students were too severely
cognitively impaired to participate meaningfully in the assessments.
This policy permitted individual schools to make the decision about
which students should participate in the assessments and led to
variability in the inclusion of students across sampled schools.
Starting with the 2006 assessments, NAGB's new NAEP policy will require
schools to include students in NAEP if the students took the regular
State assessments (with or without accommodations) and the students'
IEPs do not specify that they must be provided accommodations that NAEP
does not allow. (The NAGB policy will also require schools to include
students with disabilities who took the State's alternate assessment,
if the school believes that the students can participate meaningfully
in NAEP.)
The Department continues to provide guidance and technical assistance
to the few States that are not successful in expanding the inclusion of
students with disabilities in their assessments. The Department's
Institute of Education Sciences, guided by NAGB, continues to explore
strategies for enhancing the inclusion of various underrepresented
groups in the NAEP assessments and has been successful in expanding the
inclusion of students with disabilities in its State samples. The
Department acknowledges that there is still much work to be done in
increasing the participation and inclusion rates of students with
disabilities from the 95 percent that most States have achieved to 100
percent. We look forward to continuing to work with States as they
develop and implement the new assessment systems that are inclusive of
all students. The Department will also continue to support States in
their efforts to improve data quality and accountability.
We have already provided technical comments on the draft report to your
office. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John Hager:
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services:
Signed by:
Raymond Simon:
Deputy Secretary:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Marnie Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Arthur T. Merriam Jr. (Analyst-
in-Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Katharine Leavitt and
Scott Spicer made significant contributions to this report, in all
aspects of the work. In addition, Sheranda Campbell contributed to the
initial design of the assignment, Carolyn Boyce provided technical
support, Daniel Schwimer provided legal support, and Scott Heacock
assisted in the message and report development.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, More
Charter School-Level Data Are Needed. GAO-05-5. Washington, D.C.:
January 12, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process
for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.
Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on
Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909.
Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004.
Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination Needed
among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher
Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States Determine
Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631. Washington, D.C.: July
17, 2003.
Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information
Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington,
D.C.: May 8, 2003.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The term below grade-level standards refers to alternate
achievement standards.
[2] To assess the reliability of the reading data, we contacted all 50
states plus the District of Columbia to confirm and clarify the data
provided. We corrected identified reporting errors and determined that
the resulting data set was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
our report. The 2003-04 school year was the first year for which states
were asked to report on the participation rate of students with
disabilities in statewide assessments.
[3] NCLBA's focus on improving academic achievement for all students,
including those with disabilities, has led to changes in what is taught
to students with disabilities. For example, special education teachers
historically taught their students a primarily functional curriculum.
Students with significant cognitive disabilities learned, for example,
how to tie their shoes and how to shop in stores independently rather
than strictly academic content.
[4] In order to account for changes in participation numbers, Education
allows schools to average their assessment results and participation
rates over a period of up to 3 years.
[5] And English language learners.
[6] The term individualized education program refers to a written
statement that is developed for each student with a disability that
specifies, among other components, the services that a student will
receive, the extent to which the student will participate in the
regular education setting with nondisabled peers, and how the student
will participate in statewide assessments.
[7] Education has offered to raise the 1-percent limit on the number of
students who can be counted as meeting state achievement goals using
below grade-level standards if a state demonstrates that it has a
larger population of students with the most severe cognitive
disabilities. For example, the limit has been raised for two states,
Ohio and Virginia, to between 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent. For
information on Education's policy regarding the inclusion of students
in alternate assessments, see U.S. Department of Education, The
Achiever, Jan. 15, 2004. http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/achiever/
2004/011504.html.
[8] Data from three states that we visited showed that the
participation of students with disabilities in statewide mathematics
assessments was similar to their participation in reading assessments.
[9] During a January 2005 monitoring visit, Education found that Texas
included students in these assessments in a manner that was
inconsistent with NCLBA regulations. Texas administered alternate
assessments to students with disabilities who were performing below
grade level, whether or not the student was significantly cognitively
disabled. Education found that, although Texas alternate assessments
measure content that is below grade level, the state has not developed
standards for these assessments. Education also found that Texas
allowed districts to exceed the 1 percent limit on students with
disabilities who could be counted as having met state achievement goals
with these assessments.
[10] These data were not available for the other states we visited and
were not available nationally.
[11] For more information, see Statistical Methods to Account for
Excluded Students in NAEP at nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/
main2002/statmeth.pdf.
[12] This report examined the exclusion of students with disabilities
and students with limited English proficiency together and did not
address the impact of the exclusion of students with disabilities
separately. On the 2002 NAEP reading assessment, about 1.5 times as
many students were identified as having disabilities as limited English
proficiency. Students with disabilities were more than twice as likely
to be excluded as students with limited English proficiency. For more
information, see Edward Haertel, Including Students with Disabilities
and English Language Learners in NAEP: Effects of Differential
Inclusion Rates on Accuracy and Interpretability of Findings
(Washington, D.C.: National Assessment Governing Board, December 2003).
www.nagb.org/pubs/conferences/haertle.pdf.
[13] For more information, see National Assessment of Educational
Progress, Washington, D.C. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/
main2002/2003521b.pdf.
[14] Alternate assessments under NCLBA were first discussed as part of
Education's standards and assessment regulations. These final
regulations were issued on July 5, 2002. Alternate assessments were
also discussed in regulations issued on December 9, 2003.
[15] Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom:
Year Three of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March
2005). http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/nclby3/.
[16] GAO, Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses;
Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, GAO-03-389
(Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2003).
[17] For example, portfolios in one state required three work samples,
including a sheet on which the teacher tracked student performance
during the school year, for each of five content areas for each subject
assessed. For a student taking an alternate assessment in reading and
math, two separate portfolios with fifteen work samples each would need
to be created. Veteran teachers in one state emphasized the need to
collect work samples as part of their everyday teaching activities.
Although it was challenging to incorporate the practice into their
classrooms, this made assembling the portfolios much easier and faster.
[18] According to Education officials, this assistance was provided
primarily through the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and
the Office of Special Education Programs, with support from the
Institute of Education Sciences and the Office for Civil Rights.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: