![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.6041666666666665in"
height="0.6458333333333334in"}

**MODIFIED ACADEMIC**

**ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS**

***Non-Regulatory Guidance***

![](media/image2.png)

**July 20, 2007**

**Table of Contents**

**Introduction.................................................................................\...Page
8**

**A. [Including Students with Disabilities in State Assessment and
]{.underline}**

> **[Accountability
> Systems]{.underline}...........................................................Page
> 10**

A-1. Why should students with disabilities be included in State
assessment and accountability systems?

A-2. How may students with disabilities be included in State assessment
systems?

A-3. Who makes the decision about how a student with disabilities
participates in the State assessment system?

A-4. What is the difference between academic content standards and
academic achievement standards?

A-5. What methods should a State use to ensure that its assessment
system is accessible for students with disabilities?

A-6. Do States need to develop two alternate assessments---one based on
grade-level achievement standards and one based on alternate or modified
academic achievement standards?

**B. [Modified Academic Achievement
Standards]{.underline}..............................\...Page 14**

B-1. What is a modified academic achievement standard?

B-2. How do modified academic achievement standards compare with
alternate academic achievement standards?

B-3. May a State define modified academic achievement standards for
grade clusters (e.g., grades 3-5, 6-9, or 10-12), rather than for
individual grades?

B-4. Are States required to develop modified academic achievement
standards?

**C. [Students Assessed Based on Modified Academic Achievement
]{.underline}**

**[Standards]{.underline}............................................................................Page
16**

C-1. Who is eligible to participate in an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards?

C-2. May a student take an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards in one subject and take the general
assessment in another subject?

C-3. How often must an IEP Team consider whether a student should be
assessed based on modified academic achievement standards?

C-4. What kinds of data can be used as evidence that a student should be
assessed based on modified academic achievement standards? C-5. Must all
students who are assessed based on modified academic achievement
standards be eligible to receive a regular high school diploma?

**D. [Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Academic
Achievement]{.underline}**

**[Standards]{.underline}............................................................................Page
20**

D-1. What are the characteristics of alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards?

D-2. How do alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement
standards differ from alternate assessments based on alternate academic
achievement standards?

D-3. What is a documented and validated standards-setting process?

D-4. Why is an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards referred to as an "alternate assessment," rather
than as a "modified assessment?"

D-5. Does an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards need to have the same number of achievement levels as the
general assessment?

D-6. May a State develop an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards for some, but not all, grades?

D-7. If a State decides to develop modified academic achievement
standards, must it develop an alternate assessment for reading/language
arts, mathematics, and (beginning in the 2007-08 school year) science?

D-8. May a State modify an existing assessment or must it develop a
completely new assessment to measure student achievement based on
modified academic achievement standards?

D-9. May a State set a lower cut score on its general assessment and use
this as its alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards?

D-10. May an out-of-level assessment be used as an alternate assessment
based on modified academic achievement standards?

D-11. If a State has developed a "vertical scale" that relates scores
from out-of-level assessments to its grade-level academic content and
achievement standards, may the State count the scores of those
assessments in AYP calculations?

D-12. What are ways to decrease the difficulty of an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards, while
maintaining coverage of the grade-level content standards?

D-13 What are examples of how one State has decreased the difficulty of
a general assessment to develop an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards?

D-14. May a State allow a student to use an accommodation on the
alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
that, if used in the general grade-level assessment, would invalidate
the score?

D-15. Must a State's alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education?

D-16. May a State continue to use the "interim flexibility" until its
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards is approved?

D-17. What are the eligibility criteria that a State must meet in order
to receive "transition flexibility"?

**E. [IEP Goals Based on Grade-Level Content
Standards]{.underline}.....................Page 29**

E-1. What are IEP goals based on grade-level content standards?

E-2. Why are IEP goals based on grade-level content standards required
for students who are assessed based on modified academic achievement
standards?

E-3. Does the requirement for IEP goals based on grade-level content
standards change the IEP requirements under the IDEA?

E-4. When must an IEP Team develop IEP goals based on grade-level
content standards in order for a student to be assessed based on
modified academic achievement standards?

E-5. Are IEP goals based on grade-level content standards only
appropriate for students taking an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards?

E-6. Does the IDEA require short-term objectives or benchmarks in the
IEPs of students who participate in alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards?

E-7. Must the guidelines for developing IEP goals based on grade-level
content standards be in a separate document from the guidelines for IEP
Teams to determine who can be assessed based on modified academic
achievement standards?

**F. [Guidelines for IEP
Teams]{.underline}........................................................Page
32**

F-1. If a State decides to develop modified or alternate academic
achievement standards, what guidelines must be in place for IEP Teams?

F-2. Are there additional requirements for a State that develops
modified academic achievement standards?

F-3. Do the regulations on modified academic achievement standards
affect the role of the IEP Team in making decisions about appropriate
assessments?

F-4. What safeguards must be in place in the regulations to ensure that
a student assessed based on modified academic achievement standards has
access to grade-level content?

F-5. What information must be included in the accommodation guidelines
for IEP Teams?

F-6 What happens if an IEP Team decides that student should use an
accommodation in an assessment that results in an invalid test score?

F-7. May an accommodation that would invalidate a test score be used
during classroom instruction?

F-8. Why do States vary in terms of the accommodations that are provided
to students with disabilities? That is, why is the same accommodation
allowed in one State, but not in another?

**G. [Two (2.0) Percent
Cap]{.underline}............................................................Page
35**

G-1. What is the 2.0 percent cap?

G-2. How is the 2.0 percent cap calculated?

G-3. May SEAs or LEAs exceed the 2.0 percent cap?

G-4. Does anything in the regulation prevent an LEA from identifying
significantly more than 2.0 percent of its students to be assessed based
on modified academic achievement standards?

G-5. May a State count more than 3.0 percent of the proficient and
advanced scores from alternate assessments based on alternate and
modified academic achievement standards when calculating AYP?

G-6. May a State request an exception to the 1.0 percent cap?

G-7. May a State grant an exception to an LEA to exceed the 1.0 percent
cap?

G-8. When during the school year may a State grant an exception to an
LEA?

G-9. If an LEA receives an exception, how often must it apply for that
exception?

G-10. Does the 2.0 percent cap limit access of students with
disabilities to an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards?

G-11. Do States need to amend their accountability plans in order to use
modified academic achievement standards?

G-12. How will the Department monitor the implementation of the
regulation on modified academic achievement standards?

**H. [Implementation of the 2.0 Percent Cap: ]{.underline}**

**[Adequate Yearly
Progress]{.underline}.......................................................Page
42**

H-1. How does the 2.0 percent cap work in practice?

H-2. What if a State or LEA has more than 2.0 percent of its students
scoring proficient or advanced on an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards?

H-3. What principles should guide the implementation of the 2.0 percent
cap?

H-4. What methods may a State use to determine which scores to count as
not proficient?

H-5. For a State that develops both an alternate assessment based on
alternate academic achievement standards and an alternate assessment
based on modified academic achievement standards, how does the State or
one of its LEAs determine the percentage of proficient and advanced
scores on those assessments that must be distributed as non-proficient
scores?

H-6. Which educational agency --State or local -- is responsible for
determining how to count proficient scores that exceed the 2.0 percent
cap at the LEA level?

H-7. Does the 2.0 percent cap apply only to LEAs in which the "students
with disabilities" subgroup exceeds the State's minimum group size?

H-8 How must a student with a disability who is placed in a private
school by an LEA be included in the assessment and accountability
system?

**I.
[Reporting]{.underline}............................................................................Page
49**

I-1. How must results from alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards be reported?

I-2. What other information must States and LEAs report regarding
students taking alternate assessments based on alternate or modified
academic achievement standards?

I-3. What information do LEAs need to communicate to parents about
alternate and modified academic achievement standards?

**Appendix A: [Characteristics of Alternate
Assessments]{.underline}............................Page 52**

**INTRODUCTION**

This guidance provides States with detailed information about how to use
and implement modified academic achievement standards. The development
of modified academic achievement standards for certain students with
disabilities and the use of those standards for making adequate yearly
progress (AYP) decisions is authorized under Department regulations (34
C.F.R. Part 200) published in the [Federal Register]{.underline} on
April 9, 2007. These regulations build upon flexibility that currently
is available for measuring the achievement of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities under the regulations in 34 C.F.R.
Part 200 implementing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). Those earlier Title I regulations permit a State to develop
alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities and to include those students'
proficient and advanced scores on alternate assessments based on
alternate academic achievement standards in measuring AYP, subject to a
cap of 1.0 percent of all students assessed at the State and district
levels. Since those regulations were published, the experiences of many
States, as well as recent research, indicate that, in addition to
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, there is a
small group of students whose disability has precluded them from
achieving grade-level proficiency and whose progress is such that they
will not reach grade-level proficiency in the same time frame as other
students. Before the regulations about modified academic achievement
standards were developed, these students could take either a grade-level
assessment or an alternate assessment based on alternate academic
achievement standards. Neither of these options provides an accurate
assessment of what these students know and can do. A grade-level
assessment is too difficult and, therefore, does not provide data about
a student's abilities or information that would be helpful in guiding
instruction. An alternate assessment based on alternate academic
achievement standards is too easy and is not intended to assess a
student's achievement across the full range of grade-level content. Such
an assessment, therefore, would not provide teachers and parents with
information to help these students progress toward grade-level
achievement.

The regulations on modified academic achievement standards permit a
State, as part of its State assessment and accountability system under
Title I of the ESEA, to adopt such standards and to develop an
assessment aligned with those standards that is appropriately
challenging for this group of students. This assessment must be based on
modified academic achievement standards that cover the same grade-level
content as the general assessment. The expectations of content mastery
are modified, not the grade-level content standards themselves. The
requirement that modified academic achievement standards be aligned with
grade-level content standards is important; in order for these students
to have an opportunity to achieve at grade level, they must have access
to and instruction in grade-level content. The regulations include a
number of safeguards to ensure that students assessed based on modified
academic achievement standards have access to grade-level content so
that they can work toward grade-level achievement; for example, their
individualized education programs (IEPs) must include goals that are
based on grade-level content standards and provide for monitoring of the
students' progress in achieving those goals. In addition to ensuring
that students with disabilities are appropriately assessed, these
regulations also allow teachers and schools to receive credit for the
work that they do to help these students progress toward grade-level
achievement.

**A. [INCLUDING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES]{.underline}**

**[IN STATE ASSESSMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS]{.underline}**

**A-1. Why should students with disabilities be included in State
assessment and accountability systems?**

There are three basic reasons why including students with disabilities
in State assessment and accountability systems is critical. First, it is
established law. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and Title I of the ESEA each require [all]{.underline} students with
disabilities to be included in State assessment systems. In addition,
the prohibition against exclusion from participation or denial of
benefits to, or discrimination against, individuals with disabilities
contained in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act applies to State assessment and
accountability systems. ESEA (section 1111(b)(2)) further requires that
assessment results for all students (and students in specified
subgroups, including students with disabilities) who have been enrolled
in a school for a full academic year be used in calculating AYP for the
school, and that the assessment results of all students who have been in
a local educational agency (LEA) for a full academic year be used in
calculating AYP for the LEA and the State. In addition to State
assessments, the IDEA (section 612(a)(16)) requires that all students
with disabilities participate in district-wide assessment programs and
that alternate assessments be provided for students with disabilities
who cannot participate in grade-level assessments, even with
accommodations.[^1] Alternate assessments based on alternate academic
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities were authorized under Department regulations (34 C.F.R.
Part 200) published on December 9, 2003. Final regulations published on
April 9, 2007 provide States with the option to assess an additional
small group of students with disabilities with an alternate assessment
based on modified academic achievement standards.
\[http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2007-2/040907a.html\]

Second, students with disabilities benefit instructionally from
participating in State and district-wide assessments. Including students
with disabilities in accountability systems has resulted in parents,
teachers, and administrators paying more attention to grade-level
standards and ensuring that students with disabilities have access to
the general curriculum and an opportunity to learn grade-level content.
Together, the IDEA and NCLB work to provide the specialized and
individualized instruction and school accountability that is critical to
improving achievement for students with disabilities.

Third, to ensure that appropriate resources are dedicated to helping
students with disabilities succeed, appropriate measurement of their
achievement needs to be part of the accountability system. By including
all students in State accountability systems, schools pay attention to
the performance and progress of all students; educating students with
disabilities becomes a shared responsibility of both general and special
education teachers. Too often in the past, students with disabilities
were excluded from assessment and accountability systems, and the
consequence was that they did not receive the academic attention and
resources they deserved. When students with disabilities are part of the
accountability system, educators' expectations for these students also
are more likely to increase. In such a system, educators realize that
students with disabilities can and do learn to high levels, just like
students who do not have disabilities.

**A-2. How may students with disabilities be included in State
assessment systems?**

The assessment options for students with disabilities include the
following:

-   Participation in a general grade-level assessment.

-   Participation in a general grade-level assessment with
    accommodations.

-   Participation in an alternate assessment based on grade-level
    academic achievement standards.

-   Participation in an alternate assessment based on modified academic
    achievement standards.

-   Participation in an alternate assessment based on alternate academic
    achievement standards.

We expect that most students with disabilities will participate in a
general grade-level State assessment with or without accommodations. For
students with disabilities who cannot participate in a general
assessment, even with accommodations, the IDEA requires States to
develop and implement alternate assessments. The Title I regulations
published on December 9, 2003 permit States to develop alternate
academic achievement standards for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities and to include the proficient and advanced scores
on assessments based on those standards in calculating AYP. With the
publication of the final regulations on modified academic achievement
standards, Title I and the IDEA give States the option of developing
modified academic achievement standards for a small group of students
with disabilities who can make significant progress, but who may not
reach grade-level achievement in the time frame covered by their IEP.
The regulations permit States to include the proficient and advanced
scores on alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement
standards in calculating AYP. A State is not required to develop an
assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards or modified
academic achievement standards. However, a State must ensure that all
students with disabilities are appropriately assessed and must provide
at least one alternate assessment, unless all students with disabilities
can be appropriately assessed with the general assessment.

**A-3. Who makes the decision about how a student with disabilities
participates in the State assessment system?**

A student's individualized education program team (IEP Team), which
includes the student's parent, determines how the student will
participate in the State assessment system and what, if any,
accommodations are needed for the student to take the general
assessment. Students with disabilities who are not able to show what
they know and can do on the general grade-level assessment, even with
appropriate accommodations, must be assessed with an alternate
assessment. Alternate assessments may be based on grade-level academic
achievement standards, modified academic achievement standards, or
alternate academic achievement standards.

**A-4. What is the difference between academic content standards and
academic achievement standards?**

[Academic Content Standards]{.underline}. Academic content standards are
statements of the knowledge and skills that schools are expected to
teach and students are expected to learn. They must contain coherent and
rigorous content and encourage the teaching of advanced skills.
Effective academic content standards are clear and specific and give
teachers, students, and parents sufficient direction to guide teaching
and learning. Thus, academic content standards should be written in
clear, jargon-free, and straightforward prose that is accessible to a
wide range of audiences.

[Academic Achievement Standards]{.underline}. Academic achievement
standards are explicit definitions of how students are expected to
demonstrate attainment of the knowledge and skills reflected in the
content standards. A score from a test aligned with the content
standards is one method of defining an achievement standard. Academic
achievement standards should be conceptualized as a system that includes
the following components:

-   [Achievement levels]{.underline}\--Labels for levels of student
    achievement that convey the degree of student achievement in a given
    content area. Each achievement level encompasses a range of student
    achievement.

-   [Achievement descriptors]{.underline}\--Descriptions of the
    content-based competencies associated with each level of
    achievement. Achievement descriptors describe what students at each
    achievement level know and can do.

-   [Cut scores]{.underline}\--Scores on an assessment that separate one
    level of achievement from another.

**A-5. What methods should a State use to ensure that its assessment
system is accessible for students with disabilities?**

The Title I regulations in 34 C.F.R. §200.2(b)(2) require a State's
assessment system to be "designed to be valid and accessible for use by
the widest possible range of students, including students with
disabilities and students with limited English proficiency." To meet
this requirement, a State should field-test its assessments by sampling
the type of students who are expected to participate in the final
assessments. A State also should define precisely what the assessment is
intended to measure and develop accessible test forms that have
bias-free test items; simple, clear instructions and procedures; maximum
readability and comprehensibility; and optimal legibility.

Accessible assessments also allow for a wide range of accommodations in
test administration so that the vast majority of students with
disabilities can participate in grade-level assessments. Further, a
State must develop and widely disseminate guidance about accommodations
for each State and district-wide assessment that may be used and must
ensure that this information is communicated clearly to IEP Teams and
school-level educators. The general idea is that a State has a
responsibility to create a testing environment that ensures that
students participate in assessments in ways that produce valid and
meaningful results.

**A-6. Do States need to develop two alternate assessments\--one based
on grade-level academic achievement standards and one based on alternate
or modified academic achievement standards?**

Under the IDEA, unless all students with disabilities can be
appropriately assessed using the general assessment with or without
accommodations, a State must develop at least one alternate assessment.
A State's alternate assessment or assessments must permit students with
disabilities who cannot participate in the general assessment, even with
accommodations, to participate in the State's assessment system.
Therefore, a State should decide if one or multiple alternate
assessments are necessary to assess appropriately the group of students,
if any, who are not able to participate in the State's general
assessment. In making this decision, a State would need to consider the
extent to which accommodations on the general assessment are allowable
and sufficiently comprehensive to enable a wide range of students with
disabilities to participate.

**B. [MODIFIED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS]{.underline}**

**B-1. What is a modified academic achievement standard?**

A modified academic achievement standard is an expectation of
performance that is challenging for eligible students, but may be less
difficult than a grade-level academic achievement standard. Modified
academic achievement standards must be aligned with a State's academic
content standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled. Thus,
only the academic achievement standards are modified, not the content
standards on which those modified academic achievement standards are
based. Although the assessment and modified academic achievement
standards for a particular grade must be challenging for eligible
students, they may be less difficult when compared with the general test
and grade-level academic achievement standards.

The characteristics of modified academic achievement standards are the
same as those described in the Title I assessment regulations for
grade-level achievement standards. That is, they must be aligned with
the State's academic content standards; describe at least three levels
of achievement; include descriptions of the competencies associated with
each achievement level; and include assessment scores (cut scores) that
differentiate among the achievement levels and describe the rationale
and procedures used to determine each achievement level.

**B-2. How do modified academic achievement standards compare with
alternate academic achievement standards?**

The achievement expectations for modified academic achievement standards
are less difficult than grade-level academic achievement standards, but
more demanding than alternate academic achievement standards. Modified
academic achievement standards, like grade-level academic achievement
standards, are based on a State's approved grade-level academic content
standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled. Modified
academic achievement standards are not based on academic content
standards that have been modified or restricted. Alternate academic
achievement standards, on the other hand, are based on a very limited
sample of content that is linked to grade-level content standards but
may not fully represent grade-level content and may include
substantially simplified content.

**B-3. May a State define modified academic achievement standards for
grade clusters (e.g., grades 3-5, 6-9, or 10-12), rather than for
individual grades?**

No. Modified academic achievement standards are intended to be
challenging for students whose disabilities have prevented them from
attaining grade-level proficiency. These students must have access to a
curriculum based on grade-level content standards and, therefore, must
be assessed with a measure that is also based on grade-level content
standards. This is very different from an alternate assessment based on
alternate academic achievement standards, for which States are permitted
to define alternate academic achievement standards for grade clusters,
rather than for individual grades. Alternate academic achievement
standards are for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, many of whom are in un-graded classes. When examined
across grades, alternate academic achievement standards do not generally
show the same clearly defined differences in cognitive complexity as do
modified or grade-level academic achievement standards. Therefore, while
it is reasonable to allow alternate academic achievement standards to be
defined for grade clusters, modified academic achievement standards must
be defined for individual grades.

**B-4. Are States required to develop modified academic achievement
standards?**

No. States have the option of developing modified academic achievement
standards. While all students can learn challenging content, evaluating
that learning through the use of modified academic achievement standards
is appropriate only for a small group of students with disabilities
whose progress in response to appropriate instruction, including special
education and related services designed to address the students'
individual needs, is such that they are not likely to achieve
grade-level proficiency within the school year covered by their IEPs. If
a State chooses not to develop modified academic achievement standards,
it must still ensure that all students with disabilities are
appropriately assessed and include the assessment scores of all students
with disabilities in AYP determinations.

**C. [STUDENTS ASSESSED BASED ON ]{.underline}**

**[MODIFIED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS]{.underline}**

**C-1. Who is eligible to participate in an alternate assessment based
on modified academic achievement standards?**

To be eligible to participate in an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards, a student must be a student
with a disability under section 602(3) of the IDEA and may be in any of
the disability categories listed in the IDEA. A student's IEP Team,
which includes the student's parent, determines how the student will
participate in State and district-wide assessments. If a State chooses
to develop modified academic achievement standards, the State must
establish clear and appropriate criteria for IEP Teams to apply in
determining whether a student should be assessed based on modified
academic achievement standards in one or more subjects. These criteria
must include, but are not limited to, the following:

\(1\) There must be objective evidence demonstrating that the student's
disability has precluded the student from achieving grade-level
proficiency. Such evidence may include the student's performance on
State assessments or other assessments that can validly document
academic achievement.

\(2\) The student's progress to date in response to appropriate
instruction, including special education and related services designed
to address the student's individual needs, is such that, even if
significant growth occurs, the IEP Team is reasonably certain that the
student will not achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered
by the student's IEP. The IEP Team must use multiple valid measures of
the student's progress over time in making this determination.

\(3\) The student's IEP must include goals that are based on the
academic content standards for the grade in which the student is
enrolled.

It is a State's responsibility to establish and monitor implementation
of clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP Teams to use when deciding
if an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards is justified for an individual student. These guidelines
should provide parameters and direction to ensure that students are not
assessed based on modified academic achievement standards merely because
of their disability category or their racial or economic background.

**C-2. May a student take an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards in one subject and take the general
assessment in another subject?**

Yes. A student's IEP Team, which includes the student's parent, decides
how the student will be assessed for each applicable subject area. Thus,
an IEP Team could decide that a student should take the alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards in one
subject (e.g., reading) and the general assessment in another subject
(e.g., math).

**C-3. How often must an IEP Team consider whether a student should be
assessed based on modified academic achievement standards?**

An IEP Team must make the decision about how a student participates in
annual State and district-wide assessments each year. We expect that
there will be students with disabilities who take an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards one year,
make considerable progress during the school year, and then take the
general grade-level assessment the following year. Therefore, an IEP
Team must consider a student's progress annually based on multiple,
objective measures of the student's achievement before determining that
the student should be assessed based on modified academic achievement
standards.

**C-4. What kinds of data can be used as evidence that a student should
be assessed based on modified academic achievement standards?**

In order to ensure that students with disabilities are not
inappropriately held to modified academic achievement standards, it is
important to ensure that the data demonstrating a student's progress (or
lack of progress) are objective and valid. An IEP Team must be able to
examine the data and be reasonably certain that, given the student's
progress to date, the student is not likely to reach grade-level
proficiency within the year covered by his or her IEP.

A student's performance over time on a State's Title I general
assessment is one important way to document the student's lack of
progress based on grade-level academic achievement standards. Students
should have the opportunity to show what they know and can do on an
assessment that is based on grade-level academic achievement standards.
An IEP Team should not simply assume that the nature of a student's
disability is such that the student is not able to perform at grade
level. Other State assessments (e.g., end-of-course assessments) or
district-wide assessments are also ways to document the student's lack
of progress. In addition, data gathered from classroom assessments or
other formative assessments may be used. Data from classroom assessments
may be useful, for example, in documenting the performance of a student
who is new to a State or who has not participated in multiple State or
district-wide assessments (e.g., a third-grade student in a State that
begins testing at grade 3). There is no set length of time during which
the data must be gathered, but there must be enough time to document the
progress (or lack of progress) in response to appropriate instruction. A
student's performance on one State Title I assessment, for example,
would not be sufficient documentation to show progress or lack of
progress. The key is that there must be sufficient data for an IEP Team
to be reasonably certain that, even if significant growth occurs, the
student will not achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered
by the student's IEP.

**C-5. Must all students who are assessed based on modified academic
achievement standards be eligible to receive a regular high school
diploma**?

No. Nothing in NCLB requires or encourages States to attach
student-level consequences, such as obtaining a regular high school
diploma, to student achievement on Title I assessments. Such "high
stakes" decisions, along with high school graduation requirements, are
made at the State or local level, generally by State legislatures and
State or local school boards.

Section 200.1(f)(2)(iii) requires States to ensure that students who
take an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards are not precluded from attempting to complete the requirements
for a regular high school diploma. Depending on how a State defines its
modified academic achievement standards, students who participate in
alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards
may be a diverse group of students. Some students, for example, may take
an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
in one subject and take the general assessment in another subject. Other
students may take an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards for one or two years and take the general
assessment the next year. Students who participate in an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards must not be
prohibited automatically from attempting to meet the requirements for a
regular high school diploma.

**D. [ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS BASED ON ]{.underline}**

**[MODIFIED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS]{.underline}**

**D-1. What are the characteristics of alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards?**

Alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards
are intended to be challenging for a limited group of students whose
disability has prevented them from attaining grade-level proficiency.
These students must have access to a curriculum based on grade-level
content standards and, therefore, must be assessed with a measure that
is also based on grade-level content standards, although the assessment
may be less difficult than the general assessment. The content standards
are not modified, but the achievement expectations are less difficult
than those on the general test. This means that the same content is
covered in the test, but with less difficult questions overall.

When used as part of a State assessment system, alternate assessments
based on modified academic achievement standards should have an explicit
structure, guidelines for which students may participate, clearly
defined scoring criteria and procedures, and a report format that
communicates student performance in terms of the academic achievement
standards defined by the State. The requirements for high technical
quality set forth in 34 C.F.R. §§200.2(b) and 200.3(a)(1), including
validity, reliability, accessibility, objectivity, and consistency with
nationally recognized professional and technical standards, apply to
alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards,
just as they do to any other assessment under Title I.

**D-2. How do alternate assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards differ from alternate assessments based on
alternate academic achievement standards?**

An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
differs from an alternate assessment based on alternate academic
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities in the following ways:

\(1\) [The nature of alignment with grade-level content
standards]{.underline}. An alternate assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards must be linked to grade-level content but
need not fully represent grade-level content. A State may develop
"extended content standards" that substantially restrict or simplify
grade-level content in order to make it accessible to students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities, and use these extended content
standards as the basis for an alternate assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards. In contrast, alignment with grade-level
content standards is the foundation of an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards. An alternate assessment based
on modified academic achievement standards must cover the same
grade-level content as the general assessment.

\(2\) [Proficiency]{.underline}. The type of student work that defines
proficient performance on an alternate assessment based on alternate
academic achievement standards is substantially different from the type
of student work that defines proficient performance on grade-level
academic achievement standards. Proficient performance on an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards, in
contrast, is expected to represent understanding of grade-level content
based on a less rigorous assessment.

Although an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards differs in significant ways from an alternate assessment based
on alternate academic achievement standards, there are also several
similarities:

[Standard setting]{.underline}. Both assessments require that a
documented and validated standards-setting process be used to establish
the achievement standards. Documentation must include a detailed
description of the procedures used to set the standards and the
qualifications of the panelists.

[Technical quality]{.underline}. Both assessments must meet the same
standards for technical quality. States must document the validity,
reliability, and fairness/accessibility of these assessments.

[Reporting results]{.underline}. The number and percentage of students
taking each of the assessments must be publicly reported. Performance
results of all students with disabilities also must be reported. Parents
must receive additional information explaining the results.

Appendix A summarizes the characteristics of the three types of
alternate assessments for students with disabilities: alternate
assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards, modified
academic achievement standards, and grade-level academic achievement
standards.

**D-3. What is a documented and validated standards-setting process?**

The regulations require use of a "documented and validated
standards-setting process" to establish modified academic achievement
standards. Evidence of the procedures employed by a State must be
submitted to the Department for peer review and approval. Appropriate
documentation includes a detailed description of the materials and
activities used to establish the modified academic achievement
standards, including target content and scoring criteria. Documentation
also should address the training provided for the participants, the
qualifications of any judges involved and how they were selected, and
the final results. A validated standards-setting process is one that
follows clearly defined procedures that have been tried and evaluated
and are appropriate for the format of the assessment. Assessment
professionals are familiar with a variety of standards-setting
techniques that have been developed and applied to large-scale
assessments, including, but not limited to, reasoned judgment,
contrasting groups, modified Angoff, bookmarking or item mapping, body
of work, and judgmental policy capturing.

Once the academic achievement standards have been defined for a
particular test, they are applied consistently to all students taking
the test so that the meaning of "proficient" is not whimsical, not
individually defined, and not determined by an individual teacher or
scorer.

**D-4. Why is an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards referred to as an "alternate assessment," rather
than as a "modified assessment?"**

The term "alternate assessment" accurately conveys that an assessment
based on modified academic achievement standards is an "alternate" to
the general assessment. The term "modified assessment" is generally used
by psychometricians to refer to an assessment that has been altered in
such a way so as to render the final score invalid. Therefore, using the
term "modified assessment" would be confusing to those in the assessment
field and also inaccurately convey the purpose of the assessment.

**D-5. Does an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards need to have the same number of achievement levels
as the general assessment?**

An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
must have at least three achievement levels. If a State's general
assessment has six achievement levels, the alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards does not need to have all six
achievement levels. In such cases, decreasing the number of achievement
levels to three, instead of six, would allow the design of a test with
fewer items, while covering the same grade-level content standards as
the general assessment.

**D-6. May a State develop an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards for some, but not all, grades?**

Yes. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards is optional for States. No State is required to provide an
alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. A
State may also choose to develop an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards only for specific grades.
Therefore, depending on how a State's assessment system is structured
and the extent to which it has used "universal design" principles in the
development of its assessments and accommodations, the State may, for
example, determine that an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards is needed for grades 6 through 8. A State
also may decide first to develop an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards for high school and later
develop such an assessment for the rest of the grades.

**D-7. If a State decides to develop modified academic achievement
standards, must it develop an alternate assessment for reading/language
arts, mathematics, and (beginning in the 2007-08 school year) science?**

No. The development of modified academic achievement standards and
assessments based on those standards is optional. A State, therefore,
may develop an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards in only one subject (e.g., reading), but not in
all subjects. However, if a State develops an alternate assessment based
on modified academic achievement standards for more than one subject, it
must yield separate results for each of the subjects tested.

**D-8. May a State modify an existing assessment or must it develop a
completely new assessment to measure student achievement based on
modified academic achievement standards?**

A State may modify an existing assessment or develop a new assessment.
The State should decide what makes sense given the assessments that
exist within its assessment system.

**D-9. May a State set a lower cut score on its general assessment and
use this as its alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards?**

No. The purpose of developing an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards is to create an accurate measure of
achievement for students whose disability precludes them from reaching
proficiency on grade-level content within the current year. These
students must have access to grade-level academic content; however, an
accurate and meaningful measure of their achievement will require a
different definition of proficiency in the form of a more appropriate
test and related academic achievement standards. Setting a lower cut
score on the general assessment does nothing to make the test more
accessible or understandable.

**D-10. May an out-of-level assessment be used as an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards?**

No. An out-of-level assessment may not be used as an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards because it
is, by definition, not aligned with grade-level content standards.
Out-of-level testing means assessing students enrolled at a specific
grade level with tests designed for students enrolled at lower grade
levels. By definition, an out-of-level assessment does not meet the
requirements of an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards because it does not measure grade-level content
standards for the grade in which a student is enrolled. According to the
National Center on Educational Outcomes, research does not support the
use of out-of-level test scores from State assessments when measuring
student proficiency on standards for the grade in which a student is
enrolled.

**D-11. If a State has developed a "vertical scale" that relates scores
from out-of-level assessments to its grade-level academic content and
achievement standards, may the State count the scores of those
assessments in AYP calculations?**

No. AYP calculations are based on the proportion of students who have
demonstrated proficiency on an assessment based on either the State's
grade-level academic achievement standards, modified academic
achievement standards, or alternate academic achievement standards. The
use of a vertical scoring scale is not sufficient to document that an
assessment, other than a grade-level assessment, has met the statute's
requirements.

**D-12. What are ways to decrease the difficulty of an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards, while
maintaining coverage of the grade-level content standards?**

Grade-level content standards are the foundation of an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. Beyond this
essential requirement, a State may use a variety of strategies to design
an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards. We only can provide examples of how this might be done; it is
not our intent, in providing this guidance, to limit the approaches
States might take in developing an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards. Some States have suggested
replacing the most difficult items on the general test with simpler
items appropriate for the grade level, while retaining the same coverage
of the content standards. Others have suggested modifying the same items
that appear on the grade-level assessment by simplifying the language of
the item or eliminating a "distracter" in multiple-choice items (e.g.,
having 3 options to choose from, instead of 4). States may choose to
develop a unique assessment based on grade-level content standards that
provides flexibility in the presentation of test items, for example, by
using technology to allow students to access items via print, spoken,
and pictorial form. Or States may permit students to respond to test
items by dictating responses or using math manipulatives to illustrate
conceptual or procedural knowledge. Of course, a State is responsible
for ensuring that the design of the assessment and the method of
administration do not compromise the validity and reliability of the
test results. Regardless of whether a State chooses to construct a
unique assessment or to adapt its general assessment, an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards must be
aligned with State content standards in the same manner as the general
assessment; it must define the modified academic achievement standards
in a manner consistent with professional standards; and it must report
results in terms of the modified academic achievement standards with at
least three levels of achievement defined.

**D-13.** **What are examples of how one State has decreased the
difficulty of a general assessment to develop an alternate assessment
based on modified academic achievement standards?**

One State used the same structure as its general assessment in
developing its alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards. Its alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards is a multiple-choice test that assesses
English/language arts and math separately and is based on grade-level
content standards. Several changes to the general assessment were made
to simplify the assessment, while maintaining alignment with grade-level
content standards. Following are some of the ways that this State's
alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
differs from its general assessment:

-   The test items are less complex on the alternate assessment. For
    example, a student may be required to use conjunctions to connect
    ideas in a sentence rather than transition sentences to connect
    ideas in a passage of prose.

-   There are fewer passages in the alternate assessment's reading
    assessment. For example, at grades 3 and 4 there are two narrative
    and two expository passages on the alternate assessment versus three
    narrative and two expository passages on the general assessment.

-   There are three answer choices (i.e., two "distracters") on the
    alternate assessment, compared to four answer choices (i.e., three
    "distracters") on the general assessment.

-   Students may take the alternate assessment over as many days as
    necessary.

**D-14. May a State allow a student to use an accommodation on the
alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
that, if used in the general grade-level assessment, would invalidate
the score?**

No. An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards must cover the same grade-level content standards as the
general assessment but may include characteristics such as shorter or
less difficult questions or shorter reading passages. An accommodation
that invalidates results on the general assessment by changing the
underlying concepts tested would also change the conceptual framework of
the alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards.

**D-15. Must a State's alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education?**

An alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
developed for Title I purposes must be reviewed through the Department's
peer review of State assessment systems. A State must demonstrate that
its assessment meets the statutory requirements for validity,
reliability, accessibility, objectivity, and consistency with nationally
recognized professional and technical standards.

**D-16. May a State continue to use the "interim flexibility" until its
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards is
approved?**

The interim flexibility provided in the 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07
school years ends with the 2006-07 school year. The regulations,
however, provide a transition period of two school years (2007-08 and
2008-09) to give States time to develop alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards. Beginning with the 2007-08
school year, a State that moves expeditiously to develop an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards may request
to use a 2.0 percent proxy or a mathematical adjustment to the
proficiency rate in order to provide additional credit to schools or
districts that missed the AYP target solely based on the achievement of
students with disabilities.

The two-year limit on transition flexibility does not prohibit a State
that does not meet the Secretary's eligibility criteria from developing
an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards. Likewise, a State may develop an alternate assessment based
on modified academic achievement standards any time after the end of the
transition flexibility (i.e., the 2008-09 school year).

## D-17. What are the eligibility criteria that a State must meet in order to receive "transition flexibility"?

In accordance with 34 C.F.R. §200.20(g), the Secretary has determined
that a State must meet the following criteria to be approved to
implement transition flexibility:

-   A State must have an approved assessment system, including an
    approved alternate assessment. This means that the status of the
    system must be *Full Approval*, *Full Approval* *with
    Recommendations*, or *Approval Expected*.

-   A State must provide evidence that the achievement of students with
    disabilities is improving.

-   Statewide assessment participation rates for students with
    disabilities, for purposes of measuring AYP, must be at or above 95
    percent.

-   A State with Special Conditions regarding assessments on its IDEA,
    Part B grant will not be eligible unless such conditions are
    resolved by the time the transition flexibility will be used.

-   A State must present evidence of substantial progress in developing
    an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
    standards. (There will be a higher bar for evidence of progress for
    2008-09 than in 2007-08.) This evidence must include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A description of the progress the State has made to date in
    developing the assessment.

-   Guidelines for IEP Teams to use in determining which students are
    eligible for an assessment based on modified academic achievement
    standards.

-   Test blueprints or item development in preparation of the field
    trial, or evidence of the field trial or operational trial.

-   A timeline and implementation plan that shows how the State will
    work to complete the alternate assessment and ensure effective
    implementation (e.g., IEP Team guidelines, standards-based IEP
    goals, training for IEP Teams).

-   A Request for Proposals, contract, or evidence of funds spent or to
    be spent on developing an alternate assessment based on modified
    academic achievement standards.

**E. [IEP GOALS BASED ON GRADE-LEVEL CONTENT STANDARDS]{.underline}**

**E-1. What are IEP goals based on grade-level content standards**?

IEP goals based on grade-level academic content standards are goals that
address the skills specified in the content standards for the grade in
which a student is enrolled. Incorporating State standards in IEP goals
is not a new idea. Many educators have been working toward incorporating
State standards in IEP goals since the reauthorization of the IDEA in
1997, which required that the IEPs of students with disabilities support
their involvement and progress in the general curriculum. Some States
already require standards-based IEP goals and have developed extensive
training materials and professional development opportunities for staff
to learn how to write IEP goals that are tied to State content
standards.[^2]

**E-2. Why are IEP goals based on grade-level content standards required
for students who are assessed based on modified academic achievement
standards?**

The primary reason for requiring IEP goals based on grade-level academic
content standards is to ensure that students who participate in an
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards receive
instruction in grade-level content so that they can make progress
towards meeting grade-level proficiency. The requirement focuses the IEP
Team and the student on grade-level content and the student's
achievement level relative to those content standards, as well as the
educational supports and services that the student needs to reach those
standards. McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim, and Henderson (1999) reported that
special education teachers indicated that, when IEPs were aligned with
State content standards, students with disabilities had improved
exposure to subject matter and received focused instruction to meet
challenging goals.[^3] In addition, they noted that collaboration
between special and general education teachers was greater when they
worked with a student whose IEP goals were aligned with State content
standards.

**E-3. Does the requirement for IEP goals based on grade-level content
standards change the IEP requirements under the IDEA?**

Under section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) of the IDEA, a student's IEP must
include a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and
functional goals, designed to meet the student's needs that result from
the student's disability to enable the student to be involved in and
make progress in the general education curriculum, and to meet each of
the student's other educational needs that result from the student's
disability. This requirement applies to all students with disabilities,
regardless of how they participate in State and district-wide
assessments. The requirement that IEP goals be based on grade-level
content standards merely provides more specificity about a student's
involvement and participation in the general curriculum.

**E-4. When must an IEP Team develop IEP goals based on grade-level
content standards in order for a student to be assessed based on
modified academic achievement standards?**

Once an IEP Team determines that a student will be assessed based on
modified academic achievement standards, the IEP Team must ensure that
the student's IEP includes goals that address the content standards for
the grade in which the student is enrolled. We anticipate that decisions
about how a student will participate in State and district-wide
assessments will be made at the student's annual IEP meeting, which will
give the IEP Team time to develop IEP goals that are based on
grade-level content standards before the student takes an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. This will
not only help ensure that the student receives instruction based on
grade-level content standards after the student participates in an
alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards,
but also will help ensure that a student has had an opportunity to learn
grade-level content prior to taking an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards.

**E-5. Are IEP goals based on grade-level content standards only
appropriate for students taking an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards?**

IEP goals based on grade-level content standards are appropriate for a
wide range of students with disabilities, including students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities. It is not our intent to limit
the implementation of IEP goals based on grade-level content standards
to students participating in an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards or those achieving close to grade level.
The regulations require a student's IEP to include goals based on
grade-level content standards only for the subjects to be assessed based
on modified academic achievement standards. For example, if a student
will be assessed based on modified academic achievement standards in
reading and math, IEP goals for reading and math must be based on
grade-level content standards. However, we encourage all IEP goals that
are related to academic achievement to be based on grade-level content,
especially since the vast majority of students with disabilities will be
assessed based on those standards.

**E-6. Does the IDEA require short-term objectives or benchmarks in the
IEPs of students who participate in alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards?**

No. Under section 614(d)(1)(A)(I)(cc) of the IDEA, only the IEPs of
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who
participate in alternate assessments based on alternate academic
achievement standards must include a description of benchmarks or
short-term objectives. Alternate assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards are not the same as alternate assessments based on
alternate academic achievement standards, and, thus, students who take
those assessments are not required to have short-terms objectives or
benchmarks in their IEPs.

**E-7. Must the guidelines for developing IEP goals based on grade-level
content standards be in a separate document from the guidelines for IEP
Teams to determine who can be assessed based on modified academic
achievement standards?**

Not necessarily; it is up to each State to determine how best to
establish guidelines that meet the requirements of the regulations.

**F. [GUIDELINES FOR IEP TEAMS]{.underline}**

**F-1. If a State decides to develop modified or alternate academic
achievement standards, what guidelines must be in place for IEP Teams?**

A State that develops modified or alternate academic achievement
standards must provide clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP Teams to
apply in determining which students will be assessed based on alternate
or modified academic achievement standards. At a minimum, these
guidelines must: (a) inform IEP Teams that students eligible to be
assessed based on alternate or modified academic achievement standards
may be from any of the disability categories listed in the IDEA; (b)
provide IEP Teams with a clear explanation of the differences between
the general grade-level assessment and those based on alternate or
modified academic achievement standards, including any effects of State
and local policies on a student's education that might result from
taking an assessment based on alternate or modified academic achievement
standards; and (c) ensure that parents of students selected to be
assessed based on alternate or modified academic achievement standards
are informed that their child's achievement will be measured based on
alternate or modified academic achievement standards.

**F-2. Are there additional requirements for a State that develops
modified academic achievement standards?**

A State that implements an assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards also must:

\(1\) Establish and monitor implementation of clear and appropriate
guidelines for IEP Teams to apply in developing and implementing IEPs
that include IEP goals that are based on the academic content standards
for the grade in which a student is enrolled and are designed to monitor
the student's progress in achieving the student's standards-based goals;

\(2\) Ensure that a student has access to the curriculum, including
instruction, for the grade in which the student is enrolled;

\(3\) Ensure that a student is not precluded from attempting to complete
the requirements, as defined by the State, for a regular high school
diploma; and

\(4\) Ensure that each IEP Team reviews annually its decision to assess
a student based on modified academic achievement standards to ensure
that those standards remain appropriate.

**F-3. Do the regulations on modified academic achievement standards
affect the role of the IEP Team in making decisions about appropriate
assessments?**

An IEP Team's responsibility is unchanged by the regulations on modified
academic achievement standards. A student's IEP Team continues to
determine how the student will participate in State and district-wide
assessments. If a State chooses to develop modified academic achievement
standards and alternate assessments based on those standards, the IEP
Team will have an additional assessment to choose from when determining
the most appropriate assessment for the student.

**F-4. What safeguards are in the regulations to ensure that a student
assessed based on modified academic achievement standards has access to
grade-level content?**

The regulations on modified academic achievement standards include a
number of safeguards to ensure that a student with disabilities who is
assessed based on modified academic achievement standards has access to
grade-level content so that the student has the opportunity, over time,
to reach grade-level academic achievement standards. The safeguards for
the student that are included in the regulations include the following:

-   Modified academic achievement standards must be aligned with a
    State's academic content standards and a student must be assessed on
    the content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled
    (§200.1(e)(1)(i));

-   A student's IEP must include goals that are based on the academic
    content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled and
    be designed to monitor the student's progress in achieving the
    standards-based goals (§200.1(e)(2)(iii) and (f)(2)(i)(A));

-   A State must establish and monitor implementation of clear and
    appropriate guidelines for an IEP Team to apply in developing and
    implementing the IEP of a student assessed based on modified
    academic achievement standards (§200.1(f)(2)(ii));

-   A State's guidelines must ensure that a student who is assessed
    based on modified academic achievement standards has access to the
    curriculum, including instruction, for the grade in which the
    student is enrolled (§200.1(f)(2)(iii)); and

-   A State must ensure that a student who takes an assessment based on
    modified academic achievement standards is not precluded from
    attempting to complete the requirements, as defined by the State,
    for a regular diploma (§200.1(f)(2)(iii)).

**F-5. What information must be included in the accommodation guidelines
for IEP Teams?**

A State (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, an LEA) must
develop guidelines for the appropriate use of accommodations in State
(or, in the case of the LEA, district-wide) assessments. The guidelines
must: (a) identify the accommodations for each assessment that do not
invalidate the test score; and (b) instruct IEP Teams to select, for
each assessment, only those accommodations that do not invalidate the
score.

**F-6. What happens if an IEP Team decides that a student should use an
accommodation in an assessment that results in an invalid test score?**

If a student uses an accommodation that results in an invalid score, the
student is considered to be a non-participant under both Title I and the
IDEA. If a student takes an assessment with an accommodation that
invalidates the score, the assessment is no longer measuring the
concepts it was intended to measure. Therefore, the score does not
accurately reflect the student's academic achievement.

**F-7. May an accommodation that would invalidate a test score be used
during classroom instruction?**

There is nothing in the IDEA or Title I final regulations that prohibits
the use of accommodations in classroom instruction that, if used in a
State or district-wide assessment, would invalidate a student's score.
Under the IDEA, such classroom accommodations are considered
supplementary aids and services. It is the IEP Team's responsibility to
identify the supplementary aids and services that are necessary for a
student to advance toward attaining his or her annual goals, to be
involved in and make progress in the general curriculum, and to be
educated alongside his or her non-disabled peers.

**F-8. Why do States vary in terms of the accommodations that are
provided to students with disabilities? That is, why is the same
accommodation allowed in one State, but not in another?**

Each State is responsible for determining, for each assessment, whether
the use of a particular accommodation would change what the test is
intended to measure and, thus, invalidate the score. Because standards
and assessments differ greatly from one State to the next, an
accommodation that is permitted in one State may not be permitted in
another State. A State must provide evidence for the Department's peer
review of State-wide assessment systems under Title I that its State
assessments are valid and reliable for the purposes for which the
assessments are used, and are consistent with relevant, nationally
recognized professional and technical standards.

**G. [TWO (2.0) PERCENT CAP ]{.underline}**

**G-1. What is the 2.0 percent cap?**

Under the final regulations on modified academic achievement standards,
when measuring AYP, States and LEAs have the flexibility to count\--in
determining AYP\--the proficient and advanced scores of students who
take alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement
standards\--so long as the number of those proficient and advanced
scores does not exceed 2.0 percent of [all]{.underline} students in the
grades assessed (about 20 percent of students with disabilities) at the
LEA and State levels. The 2.0 percent cap is necessary to ensure that
modified academic achievement standards are used appropriately. The 2.0
percent cap, in conjunction with the requirements for State guidelines
in §200.1(f), is meant to discourage the inappropriate assessment of
students based on modified academic achievement standards.

**G-2. How is the 2.0 percent cap calculated?**

The 2.0 percent cap is based on the number of students enrolled in the
tested grades. This means that if a State provides an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards in only
three grades, the 2.0 percent calculation is based on the number of
students in those three grades. The number of students in a tested grade
is based on enrollment at the time of testing, including students who
are publicly placed in a private school to receive special education
services.

**G-3. May SEAs or LEAs exceed the 2.0 percent cap?**

Under specific limited conditions, States and LEAs may exceed the 2.0
percent cap. (See Table 1.) The 2.0 percent cap may be exceeded only if
a State or LEA is below the 1.0 percent cap for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who take alternate assessments based
on alternate academic achievement standards. For example, if the number
of proficient and advanced scores on the alternate assessment based on
alternate academic achievement standards is 0.8 percent, the State or
LEA could include 2.2 percent of the proficient and advanced scores on
alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards
in calculating AYP.

The rationale for permitting States or LEAs to exceed the 2.0 percent
cap under these limited circumstances is to encourage IEP Teams to
consider an assessment based on modified academic achievement standards
for students who might otherwise be assessed based on alternate academic
achievement standards. Although modified academic achievement standards
may be less challenging than grade-level academic achievement standards,
they are more challenging than alternate academic achievement standards
and, thus, may be more appropriate for some students who are currently
taking alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards. In addition, the policy provides flexibility for States that
may design their alternate academic achievement standards for a very
small population of students with disabilities.

Table 1. When May a State or LEA Exceed the 1.0 and 2.0 Percent Caps?

+-----+------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
|     | **Alternate      | **Modified Academic  | **Alternate and     |
|     | Academic         | Achievement          | Modified Academic   |
|     | Achievement      | Standards\--2.0      | Achievement         |
|     | Standards\--1.0  | Percent Cap**        | Standards\--3.0     |
|     | Percent Cap**    |                      | Percent Cap**       |
+-----+------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| #   | Not permitted.   | Only if State is     | Not permitted.      |
| **S |                  | below 1.0 percent    |                     |
| tat |                  | cap, but cannot      |                     |
| e** |                  | exceed 3.0 percent   |                     |
|     |                  | cap.                 |                     |
+-----+------------------+----------------------+---------------------+
| ##  | Only if granted  | Only if LEA is below | Only if granted an  |
| ### | an exception by  | 1.0 percent cap, but | exception to the    |
| ##  | the SEA.         | cannot exceed 3.0    | 1.0 percent cap by  |
| LEA |                  | percent cap.         | the SEA, and only   |
|     |                  |                      | by the amount of    |
|     |                  |                      | the exception.      |
+-----+------------------+----------------------+---------------------+

**G-4. Does anything in the regulation prevent an LEA from identifying
significantly more than 2.0 percent of its students to be assessed based
on modified academic achievement standards?**

The 2.0 percent cap is a cap on the number of proficient and advanced
scores that can be counted toward AYP, and not a cap on the number of
students with disabilities who may take an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards. If the number of proficient and
advanced scores from assessments based on modified academic achievement
standards exceeds 2.0 percent of all the students tested, the additional
scores would be counted as non-proficient in calculating AYP, which
would be to the detriment of the school and the LEA. We do not believe
that the number of students who are eligible to take an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards is
significantly greater than 2.0 percent. Therefore, an LEA that assesses
significantly more than 2.0 percent of its students with an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards should
prompt a review by the State of the implementation of its guidelines to
ensure that the LEA was not inappropriately assigning students to take
that assessment.

**G-5. May a State count more than 3.0 percent of the proficient and
advanced scores from alternate assessments based on alternate and
modified academic achievement standards when calculating AYP?**

No. Under no circumstances may the percentage of proficient and advanced
scores on alternate assessments based on alternate and modified academic
achievement standards exceed 3.0 percent at the State level. The vast
majority of students with disabilities can and should be assessed based
on grade-level achievement standards and, therefore, it is not necessary
or appropriate at the State level for the proficient and advanced scores
of more than 3.0 percent of students who are assessed based on alternate
or modified academic achievement standards to be counted in AYP
determinations.

**G-6. May a State request an exception to the 1.0 percent cap?**

No. A State no longer may request an exception from the Department to
exceed the 1.0 percent cap. With the implementation of the final
regulations on modified academic achievement standards, States now have
sufficient flexibility to measure the achievement of more students with
disabilities appropriately with alternate assessments. A State may
*not*, for example, include 1.3 percent of proficient and advanced
scores on alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards and 1.7 percent of proficient and advanced scores on alternate
assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in
calculating AYP. However, as noted in question G-3, if the number of
proficient and advanced scores on alternate assessments based on
alternate academic achievement standards in a State is less than 1.0
percent, the State may include more than 2.0 percent of proficient and
advanced scores based on modified academic achievement standards in
calculating AYP, so long as the total number of proficient and advanced
scores on alternate assessments based on alternate and modified academic
achievement standards does not exceed 3.0 percent.

**G-7. May a State grant an exception to an LEA to exceed the 1.0
percent cap?**

Yes. A State may grant permission to an LEA to exceed the 1.0 percent
cap. In such cases, the LEA may exceed 3.0 percent, but only by the
amount of the exception to the 1.0 percent cap. For example, if a State
allows an LEA to exceed the 1.0 percent cap by 0.10 percent, the LEA may
count a total of 3.1 percent of the proficient and advanced scores on
alternate assessments based on alternate and modified academic
achievement standards in AYP calculations. A State does not need to
apply for an exception from the Department in order to grant exceptions
to its LEAs.

It is important to continue to allow States to permit an exception to
the 1.0 percent cap at the LEA level because there may still be
significant local variation in the number of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities. Some LEAs may provide special
services for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
in one or a few schools. Additionally, the enrollment patterns of
students across LEAs might not result in an even distribution of
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities among schools,
even if there are no special centers for these students. In these cases,
a 1.0 percent cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores on
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards
would prove unworkable at a school level and not be in the best
interests of those students.

If an LEA requests an exception to the 1.0 percent cap, the LEA should
document that it is fully and effectively implementing the State
guidelines listed in 34 C.F.R. §200.1(f) to demonstrate that it is
appropriately including students with disabilities in its assessment
system. As States consider whether to allow any exceptions, however,
they should be mindful of how individual LEA exceptions will affect the
overall 1.0 percent cap that applies at the State level, as well as the
requirement that no more than 3.0 percent of proficient and advanced
scores from alternate assessments based on alternate and modified
academic achievement standards be included in AYP calculations.

Exceptions should not be granted on the basis of poor or inaccurate
identification or the inappropriate use of alternate or modified
academic achievement standards. Instead, exception requests might be
granted if an LEA addresses satisfactorily certain issues, such as
incidence rates of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities; circumstances in the LEA that would explain the higher
incidence rates (such as specialized health programs or facilities); and
implementation of safeguards that limit the inappropriate use of
alternate and modified academic achievement standards. These safeguards
include implementing State guidelines through the IEP process; informing
parents about the actual achievement of students; reporting, to the
extent possible, on test-taking patterns; including students with
disabilities in the general curriculum; providing information about the
use of appropriate accommodations; and ensuring that teachers and other
educators participate in appropriate professional development about
alternate assessments.

**G-8. When during the school year may a State grant an exception to an
LEA?**

A State may grant an exception to the 1.0 percent cap to an LEA before
or after assessments are administered for a particular year. The
granting of an exception must not delay the identification of schools
for improvement.

**G-9. If an LEA receives an exception, how often must it reapply for
that exception?**

As stated in 34 C.F.R. §200.13(c)(5)(ii), a State must review regularly
whether an LEA's exception to the 1.0 percent cap is still warranted.
This does not mean the LEA must submit an exception request each year.
Instead, the State should monitor the implementation of this exception
on a regular basis and determine its necessity.

**G-10. Does the 2.0 percent cap limit access of students with
disabilities to an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards?**

No. The regulations do not limit the number of students with
disabilities who may take an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards when that is appropriate. They address
only the inclusion of proficient and advanced scores from alternate
assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in AYP
calculations.

**G-11. Do States need to amend their accountability plans in order to
use modified academic achievement standards?**

Yes. A State should amend its accountability plan if it decides to
assess students based on modified academic achievement standards. A
letter sent by Deputy Secretary Raymond Simon to chief State school
officers on February 7, 2007 provides guidance on submitting plan
amendments. It can be found at the following website:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/070207.html.

**G-12. How will the Department monitor the implementation of the
regulations on modified academic achievement standards?**

Just as has been done with the implementation of the 1.0 percent
regulation, the Department's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
and the Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) will coordinate
their efforts to ensure that the regulations are appropriately
implemented. Through their peer review of standards and assessments,
OESE will ensure that modified academic achievement standards and State
guidelines meet the requirements of the regulations and that the
assessments, based on those standards, meet the requirements for high
technical quality that are required of all assessments under NCLB. In
addition, OESE will amend its on-site monitoring protocol to ensure that
State guidelines for selecting students to be assessed based on modified
academic achievement standards are being appropriately applied.

OSEP also will amend its monitoring protocols and desk audits to include
a review of how States are ensuring that districts and schools are
implementing the requirements of the regulation, including, for example,
ensuring that IEP goals are based on grade-level content standards and
that IEP Teams are informed of the differences between an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards or alternate
academic achievement standards and an assessment based on grade-level
academic achievement standards. In addition, each year OSEP will review
State-submitted data in two areas that are particularly relevant to
implementation of these regulations: (1) the participation and
performance of students with disabilities in assessments and (2) least
restrictive environment (LRE). (These data are part of the State
Performance Plan (SPP) for which the States are required to report
annually.) OSEP reviews data submitted for the Annual Performance Report
(APR) to identify potential issues for its "focused monitoring" process.
If the data indicate that there are issues with either LRE or assessment
participation, the implementation of the regulations based on modified
academic achievement standards would likely be part of focused
monitoring reviews.

OSEP and OESE staff will continue to share information about their
findings so that efforts are coordinated and not duplicated.

> **H. [IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2.0 PERCENT CAP:]{.underline}**
>
> **[ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS]{.underline}**

**H-1. How does the 2.0 percent cap work in practice?**

The 2.0 percent cap works in the same manner as the 1.0 percent cap for
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards.
Both caps (calculated at the State and LEA levels) are based on the
number of students enrolled in the grade(s) tested. The following
example illustrates how the policy should work in practice for the 2.0
percent cap. As determined by the 2.0 percent cap, an LEA with l0,000
students in the grades assessed may count for AYP purposes no more than
200 students scoring proficient or advanced on an alternate assessment
based on modified academic achievement standards. This LEA has 250
students taking the alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards, but only 200 students score at the proficient or
advanced levels on this assessment. Since the number of proficient
scores does not exceed the cap, all such scores from the alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards may be
included as proficient or advanced in the relevant schools' AYP
determinations. The remaining 50 non-proficient scores would also be
included in the schools' AYP calculations. Because only 200 of the 250
of the students assessed with an alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards are proficient, the LEA would not exceed
the cap.

**H-2. What if a State or LEA has more than 2.0 percent of its students
scoring proficient or advanced on an alternate assessment based on
modified academic achievement standards?**

The 2.0 percent cap (calculated at the State and LEA levels) is a limit
on the number of proficient or advanced scores based on modified
academic achievement standards that may count as proficient or advanced
for AYP purposes. The following example illustrates the implications for
an LEA where more than 2.0 percent of its students score proficient on
an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement
standards. The 2.0 percent cap requires that an LEA with 10,000 students
in the grades assessed may count for AYP purposes the scores of no more
that 200 students scoring proficient or advanced on an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. If 250
students in this LEA score proficient or advanced on an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (and the LEA
reached the 1.0 percent cap on alternate assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards), the LEA must:

\(1\) Determine which 50 proficient and advanced scores will be
considered not proficient, and

\(2\) Count these excess 50 scores as not proficient in each subgroup
that each student is in (e.g., all students, a racial/ethnic group, and
students with disabilities) at the school, LEA, and SEA levels.

**H-3. What principles should guide the implementation of the 2.0
percent cap?**

All scores based on modified academic achievement standards must be
included in school, LEA, and State AYP calculations. Moreover, an
individual student's results from such assessments must be counted in
all appropriate subgroups. Each student's score used for calculating AYP
must remain the same at each level of the educational system\--school,
LEA, and State\--and for each subgroup of which the student is a member
for which AYP is calculated. In circumstances in which more than 2.0
percent of the students score proficient or advanced on an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards in an LEA,
the State should work with the LEA to determine which proficient scores
are counted as non-proficient at schools in the LEA responsible for
students who took an alternate assessment based on modified academic
achievement standards. Regardless of how an individual student's score
is treated in AYP calculations, the parent must be informed of the
actual academic achievement level earned by his or her student.

**H-4. What methods may a State use to determine which scores to count
as not proficient?**

The models that States use to distribute the proficient and advanced
scores that exceed the 1.0 percent cap also can be used to distribute
the proficient and advanced scores that exceed the 2.0 percent cap. A
paper written by Tiffany Martinez and Ken Olsen of the Mid-South
Regional Resource Center funded by the Office of Special Education
Programs, [Distribution of Proficient Scores that Exceed the 1% Cap:
Four Possible Approaches]{.underline}, explains methods used by some
States to handle the situation. This paper is found at the Education
Resources Information Center (ERIC) at www.eric.ed.gov. (The paper is
ERIC# ED484423.)

All proficient and advanced scores based on modified academic
achievement standards that exceed 2.0 percent of total enrollment in the
grades tested must be counted as non-proficient against grade-level
standards in AYP calculations. These scores are hereinafter referred to
as "redistributed non-proficient scores."

In the hypothetical LEA described in H-2 there are four schools
responsible for students who take alternate assessments based on
modified academic achievement standards.

-   In school A, there are 100 proficient scores.

-   In school B, there are 100 proficient scores.

-   In school C, there are 50 proficient scores.

-   In school D, there are 50 proficient scores.

Because more than 2.0 percent of this LEA's students scored proficient
based on modified academic achievement standards, 100 of the 300
proficient scores must be counted as non-proficient at schools A, B, C,
and/or D. If the State were to use a proportional method for
redistributing the non-proficient scores, the outcome might look like
this:

-   In school A, there are 66 proficient scores, and 34 redistributed
    non-proficient scores.

-   In school B, there are 66 proficient scores, and 34 redistributed
    non-proficient scores.

-   In school C, there are 34 proficient scores, and 16 redistributed
    non-proficient scores.

-   In school D, there are 34 proficient scores, and 16 redistributed
    non-proficient scores.

If a State exceeds the cap, it would need to follow a similar process
and determine which scores to count as non-proficient among LEAs and
schools that administer alternate assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards. The Martinez and Olsen paper presents several
models for redistributing the non-proficient scores.

**H-5. For a State that develops both an alternate assessment based on
alternate academic achievement standards and an alternate assessment
based on modified academic achievement standards, how does the State or
one of its LEAs determine the percentage of proficient and advanced
scores on those assessments that must be distributed as non-proficient
scores?**

Table 2 provides hypothetical examples of four LEAs and shows the
percentage of proficient and advanced scores on either the alternate
assessments that must be redistributed as non-proficient scores. Please
note that the same policy should apply to the State and LEA levels
*unless* the LEA has an exception from the State. (See question G-7.)

Table 2. Examples Showing the Percentage of Proficient and Advanced
Scores to be Redistributed in a State that Implements Both Modified and
Alternate Academic Achievement Standards

+------------+--------------------+------------------+----------------+
|            | **Percent of all   |                  | **Proficient   |
|            | students in grades |                  | and advanced   |
|            | assessed achieving |                  | scores that    |
|            | proficient or      |                  | must be        |
|            | advanced scores on |                  | redistributed  |
|            | alternate          |                  | as             |
|            | assessments *not*  |                  | non-proficient |
|            | based on grade     |                  | scores**       |
|            | level achievement  |                  |                |
|            | standards**        |                  |                |
+------------+--------------------+------------------+----------------+
|            | **Alternate        | **Modified       |                |
|            | academic           | academic         |                |
|            | achievement        | achievement      |                |
|            | standards\--1.0    | standards\--2.0  |                |
|            | percent cap**      | percent cap**    |                |
+------------+--------------------+------------------+----------------+
| **LEA A**  | 0.9 percent        | 2.6 percent      | 0.5 percent    |
|            |                    |                  |                |
| Exceeds    |                    |                  |                |
| the 2.0    |                    |                  |                |
| percent    |                    |                  |                |
| cap        |                    |                  |                |
+------------+--------------------+------------------+----------------+
| ###        | 0.7 percent        | 2.3 percent      | 0              |
| #### LEA B |                    |                  |                |
|            |                    |                  |                |
| Exceeds    |                    |                  |                |
| the 2.0    |                    |                  |                |
| percent    |                    |                  |                |
| cap        |                    |                  |                |
+------------+--------------------+------------------+----------------+
| ###        | 1.4 percent        | 1.5 percent      | 0.4 percent    |
| #### LEA C |                    |                  |                |
|            |                    |                  |                |
| Exceeds    |                    |                  |                |
| the 1.0    |                    |                  |                |
| percent    |                    |                  |                |
| cap        |                    |                  |                |
+------------+--------------------+------------------+----------------+
| ###        | 1.3 percent        | 2.6 percent      | 0.9 percent    |
| #### LEA D |                    |                  |                |
|            |                    |                  | (0.3 percent   |
| Exceeds    |                    |                  | must be from   |
| both the   |                    |                  | scores based   |
| 1.0 and    |                    |                  | on alternate   |
| 2.0        |                    |                  | academic       |
| percent    |                    |                  | achievement    |
| caps       |                    |                  | standards)     |
+------------+--------------------+------------------+----------------+

-   [LEA A]{.underline} does not exceed the 1.0 percent cap; it is 0.1
    percent under the cap. However, LEA A exceeds the 2.0 percent cap by
    0.6 percent. Since an LEA (or State) may exceed the 2.0 percent cap
    by the amount it is below the 1.0 percent cap, the LEA only needs to
    redistribute 0.5 percent of its proficient and advanced scores as
    non-proficient scores (0.9 percent + 2.6 percent = 3.5 percent - 3.0
    percent = 0.5 percent).

    -   One can also look at this example in terms of numbers rather
        than percentage of scores. If LEA A has 1000 students, up to 10
        students may be counted as proficient or advanced on an
        alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement
        standards (1.0 percent cap). In this example, LEA A has 9
        students who have scored proficient or advanced on this
        assessment. Up to 20 students may be counted as proficient or
        advanced on an alternate assessment based on modified academic
        achievement standards (2.0 percent cap). LEA A has 26 students
        scoring proficient or advanced on this assessment. The LEA has a
        total of 35 students scoring proficient or advanced on both
        alternate assessments and may only use 30 of those scores as
        proficient or advanced in AYP calculations; it must redistribute
        5 scores as non-proficient scores.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [LEA B]{.underline} is under the 1.0 percent cap by 0.3 percent and
    over the 2.0 percent cap by 0.3 percent. An LEA or State may exceed
    the 2.0 percent cap so long as it does not have more than a total of
    3.0 percent proficient and advanced scores from both alternate
    assessments. In this case, LEA B does not exceed that 3.0 percent
    limit so it does not need to redistribute any scores.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [LEA C]{.underline} exceeds the 1.0 percent cap by 0.4 percent, but
    is under the 2.0 percent cap by 0.5 percent. An LEA or State may not
    exceed the 1.0 percent cap (unless the LEA has an exception from the
    State), even if it has less than 2.0 percent of proficient or
    advanced scores on the alternate assessment based on modified
    academic achievement standards. Therefore LEA C has 0.4 percent of
    its proficient and advanced scores from the alternate assessment
    based on alternate academic achievement standards that must be
    redistributed as non-proficient scores.

-   [LEA D]{.underline} exceeds both the 1.0 percent and 2.0 percent
    caps (by 0.3 and 0.6 percent, respectively). Therefore, LEA D has
    0.9 percent of its proficient and advanced scores from its alternate
    assessments that must be redistributed as non-proficient scores.
    (1.3 percent + 2.6 percent = 3.9 percent minus 3.0 percent = .9
    percent). Note that 0.3 percent must be from scores from alternate
    assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards since
    LEA D was 0.3 percent over the 1.0 percent cap (unless the LEA has
    an exception from the State).

**H-6. Which educational agency\--State or local\--is responsible for
determining how to count proficient scores that exceed the 2.0 percent
cap at the LEA level?**

NCLB requires States to establish and monitor implementation of their
accountability system. Within that system, LEAs are responsible for
identifying schools in need of improvement and for making AYP
determinations. (See section 1116(a)(1).) In practice, the educational
agency that carries out this responsibility may differ depending upon
how assessments are administered, scored, and analyzed. Thus, each State
defines the general procedures for dealing with scores above the 2.0
percent cap at the local level and may make the LEA responsible for
identifying which individual scores are to be treated as non-proficient
in AYP calculations.

Ultimately, the process of counting all scores, including those that are
to be included as not proficient because an LEA has exceeded the cap,
should be methodical and consistent with State regulations and
guidelines. The Martinez and Olsen paper (referred to in H-4) describes
a few options that States and LEAs can consider when establishing this
system. An LEA must follow the State's procedures for allocating the
scores among its schools. A State might identify a particular method
that all LEAs must use, or a State might permit LEAs to select among
several methods approved by the State.

**H-7. Does the 2.0 percent cap apply only to LEAs in which the
"students with disabilities" subgroup exceeds the State's minimum group
size?**

No. It applies to any LEA that has at least one student who takes an
alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards.
Students taking such assessments do not vanish if there is not a
"students with disabilities" subgroup\--these students appear in a
number of other categories, such as the "all students" and major
racial/ethnic groups.

**H-8. How must a student with a disability who is placed in a private
school by an LEA be included in the assessment and accountability
system?**

A student with a disability who is publicly placed in a private school
must be included in the assessment and accountability system in three
ways. First, under 34 C.F.R. §300.146(b), the student must be provided
an education that meets the standards that apply to education provided
by the State and LEA. Therefore, the State's academic standards apply to
the student and the student must participate in the State's academic
assessment system. Second, the assessment results from a student with
disabilities who is placed in, or referred to, a private school or
facility by a public agency as a means of providing special education
and related services must be included in LEA and State AYP decisions.
The assessment scores must be used in determining AYP for the LEA that
placed the student in the private school or facility and for the State.
Third, the student is considered to be enrolled in the LEA when
determining how many scores can be included, subject to the 2.0 percent
cap, as proficient or advanced based on modified academic achievement
standards.

**I. [REPORTING]{.underline}**

**I-1. How must results from alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards be reported?**

NCLB requires two kinds of assessment reporting: (1) reports to parents,
teachers, and principals, and (2) reports to the public.

\(1\) [Reports to parents, teachers, and principals]{.underline}: NCLB
requires that a State's assessment system, including its alternate
assessments based on alternate and modified academic achievement
standards, produce individual student interpretive, descriptive, and
diagnostic reports that allow parents, teachers, and principals to
understand and address the specific academic needs of students, and
include information regarding achievement on academic assessments based
on the State's academic achievement standards. For these reports, States
and LEAs must report the actual scores received by students who
participate in alternate assessments based on modified academic
achievement standards, even if a proficient or advanced score has been
reallocated as not proficient for AYP purposes.

\(2\) [Public reports]{.underline}: NCLB also requires that States and
LEAs prepare and disseminate public report cards.[^4] Two of the main
sections of these public report cards are those that present (A)
assessment data and (B) accountability data.

> \(A\) The assessment data in public report cards must include results
> for [all]{.underline} students in the grades tested in the State, not
> just those students enrolled for a full academic year. In the
> assessment data section of public report cards, States and LEAs must
> report the actual scores received by students who participate in
> alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement
> standards, even if proficient and advanced scores have been
> redistributed as not proficient for AYP purposes.
>
> \(B\) In the accountability section of public report cards, States and
> LEAs must report the student assessment scores used by the State and
> LEAs to determine AYP. For this section of the public report card,
> States and LEAs must report the scores of students taking an alternate
> assessment based on modified academic achievement standards as
> redistributed after considering the 2.0 percent cap.

**I-2. What other information must States and LEAs report regarding
students taking alternate assessments based on alternate or modified
academic achievement standards?**

As part of the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) under the
ESEA, States must annually report information regarding the testing of
students with disabilities: for both reading/language arts and
mathematics. States must report both the total number and percentage of
students with disabilities who participated in: (1) the general
grade-level assessment with or without accommodations; (2) an alternate
assessment based on grade-level achievement standards; (3) an alternate
assessment based on modified academic achievement standards; and (4) an
alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards.

The reporting requirements under the IDEA are similar. States must make
available to the public with the same frequency and in the same detail
as they report on the assessment of non-disabled students the number of
students with disabilities participating in general assessments, and the
number of those students who were provided accommodations in order to
participate in those assessments; the number of students with
disabilities, if any, who participate in an alternate assessment based
on grade-level academic achievement standards; the number of students
with disabilities, if any, who are assessed based on modified academic
achievement standards; and the number of students with disabilities, if
any, who are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards.
A State must also report, compared to the achievement results for all
children, the performance results of students with disabilities on all
assessments including general assessments, alternate assessments based
on grade-level academic achievement standards, alternate assessments
based on modified academic achievement standards, and alternate
assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards.

**I-3. What information do LEAs need to communicate to parents about
alternate and modified academic achievement standards?**

A State must ensure that parents of students selected to be assessed
based on alternate or modified academic achievement standards are
informed that their student's achievement will be measured based on
alternate or modified academic achievement standards. In addition, the
State must provide parents and other members of the IEP Team a clear
explanation of the differences between assessments based on grade-level
academic achievement standards and those based on alternate or modified
academic achievement standards. The information must include any effect
of State and local policies on a student's education resulting from
taking an assessment based on alternate or modified academic achievement
standards. This is particularly important when only satisfactory
performance on a general assessment would qualify a student for a
regular high school diploma.

If a student's scores are counted as not proficient instead of
proficient because the LEA or State exceeds the 2.0 percent cap, parents
must receive the student's actual score. Further, LEAs or States are not
required to inform parents that a student's score was counted
differently for AYP purposes.

**Appendix A**

**[Characteristics of Alternate Assessments]{.underline}**

+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
|         | **Alternate      | **Alternate      | **Alternate        |
|         | Assessment based | Assessment based | Assessment based   |
|         | on**             | on**             | on**               |
|         |                  |                  |                    |
|         | **Alternate      | **Modified       | **Grade-Level      |
|         | Academic         | Academic         | Academic           |
|         | Achievement      | Achievement      | Achievement        |
|         | Standards (1%)** | Standards (2%)** | Standards**        |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **Achi  | -   An alternate | -   A modified   | -   A grade-level  |
| evement |     academic     |     academic     |     academic       |
| sta     |     achievement  |     achievement  |     achievement    |
| ndard** |     standard is  |     standard is  |     standard       |
|         |     an           |     aligned to   |     defines a      |
|         |     expectation  |     grade-level  |     level of       |
|         |     of           |     content      |     "proficient"   |
|         |     performance  |     standards    |     performance    |
|         |     that differs |     for the      |     equivalent to  |
|         |     in           |     grade in     |     grade-level    |
|         |     complexity   |     which a      |     achievement on |
|         |     from a       |     student is   |     the State's    |
|         |     grade-level  |     enrolled and |     regular        |
|         |     achievement  |     challenging  |     assessment.    |
|         |     standard,    |     for eligible |                    |
|         |     usually      |     students,    | -   Achievement    |
|         |     based on a   |     but may be   |     standards must |
|         |     very limited |     less         |     include 3      |
|         |     sample of    |     difficult    |     levels of      |
|         |     content that |     than         |     performance,   |
|         |     is linked to |     grade-level  |     cut scores     |
|         |     but does not |     achievement  |     that           |
|         |     fully        |     standards.   |     distinguish    |
|         |     represent    |                  |     one level from |
|         |     grade-level  | -   Achievement  |     another, and   |
|         |     content.     |     standards    |     descriptions   |
|         |                  |     must include |     of the         |
|         | -   May be       |     3 levels of  |     content-based  |
|         |     defined for  |     performance, |     competencies   |
|         |     grade        |     cut scores   |     associated     |
|         |     clusters,    |     that         |     with each      |
|         |     e.g., 3-5.   |     distinguish  |     level.         |
|         |                  |     one level    |                    |
|         |                  |     from         | -   Must be        |
|         |                  |     another, and |     defined        |
|         |                  |     descriptions |                    |
|         |                  |     of the       |    grade-by-grade. |
|         |                  |                  |                    |
|         |                  |    content-based |                    |
|         |                  |     competencies |                    |
|         |                  |     associated   |                    |
|         |                  |     with each    |                    |
|         |                  |     level.       |                    |
|         |                  |                  |                    |
|         |                  | -   Must be      |                    |
|         |                  |     defined      |                    |
|         |                  |                  |                    |
|         |                  |  grade-by-grade. |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **      | -   Requires a   | -   Requires a   | -   Requires a     |
| Setting |     "documented  |     "documented  |     "documented    |
| stan    |     and          |     and          |     and validated  |
| dards** |     validated    |     validated    |     standard       |
|         |     standard     |     standard     |     setting        |
|         |     setting      |     setting      |     process." A    |
|         |     process." A  |     process." A  |     detailed       |
|         |     detailed     |     detailed     |     description of |
|         |     description  |     description  |     the procedures |
|         |     of the       |     of the       |     used, the      |
|         |     procedures   |     procedures   |     qualifications |
|         |     used, the    |     used, the    |     of panelists   |
|         |                  |                  |     (which must    |
|         |   qualifications |   qualifications |     include        |
|         |     of panelists |     of panelists |     persons        |
|         |     (which must  |     (which must  |     knowledgeable  |
|         |     include      |     include      |     about the      |
|         |     persons      |     persons      |     State's        |
|         |                  |                  |     content        |
|         |    knowledgeable |    knowledgeable |     standards and  |
|         |     about the    |     about the    |     experienced in |
|         |     State's      |     State's      |     standards      |
|         |     content      |     content      |     setting and    |
|         |     standards    |     standards    |     special        |
|         |     and          |     and          |     educators who  |
|         |     experienced  |     experienced  |     are most       |
|         |     in standards |     in standards |     knowledgeable  |
|         |     setting and  |     setting and  |     about students |
|         |     special      |     special      |     with           |
|         |     educators    |     educators    |     disabilities), |
|         |     who are most |     who are most |     the final cut  |
|         |                  |                  |     scores, and    |
|         |    knowledgeable |    knowledgeable |     performance    |
|         |     about        |     about        |     level          |
|         |     students     |     students     |     descriptors    |
|         |     with         |     with         |     must be        |
|         |                  |                  |     submitted for  |
|         |   disabilities), |   disabilities), |     peer review.   |
|         |     the final    |     the final    |                    |
|         |     cut scores,  |     cut scores,  |                    |
|         |     and          |     and          |                    |
|         |     performance  |     performance  |                    |
|         |     level        |     level        |                    |
|         |     descriptors  |     descriptors  |                    |
|         |     must be      |     must be      |                    |
|         |     submitted    |     submitted    |                    |
|         |     for peer     |     for peer     |                    |
|         |     review.      |     review.      |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **      | -   "Extended"   | -   Grade-level. | -   Grade-level.   |
| Content |     standards    |                  |                    |
| st      |     may include  |                  |                    |
| andards |                  |                  |                    |
| on      |    substantially |                  |                    |
| which   |     simplified   |                  |                    |
| the     |     content,     |                  |                    |
| test is |     including    |                  |                    |
| based** |                  |                  |                    |
|         |    pre-requisite |                  |                    |
|         |     skills.      |                  |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **Asses | -   May include  | -   Built on     | -   Grade-level    |
| sment** |     reduced      |     grade-level  |     content.       |
|         |     coverage     |     content but  |                    |
|         |     and/or       |     with easier  |                    |
|         |                  |     items.       |                    |
|         |   simplification |                  |                    |
|         |     of           |                  |                    |
|         |     grade-level  |                  |                    |
|         |     content,     |                  |                    |
|         |     based on     |                  |                    |
|         |     "extended"   |                  |                    |
|         |     standards.   |                  |                    |
|         |     Format may   |                  |                    |
|         |     permit       |                  |                    |
|         |     variation in |                  |                    |
|         |     test content |                  |                    |
|         |     for          |                  |                    |
|         |     individual   |                  |                    |
|         |     students if  |                  |                    |
|         |     results can  |                  |                    |
|         |     be           |                  |                    |
|         |     aggregated.  |                  |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **Cap** | -   State and    | -   State and    | N/A.               |
|         |     LEA.         |     LEA.         |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **Out-o | -   Permitted    | -   Not          | -   Not permitted  |
| f-Level |     only if      |     permitted    |     because        |
| Assess  |     consistent   |     because      |     out-of-level   |
| ments** |     with the     |     out-of-level |     assessments do |
|         |     regulation,  |     assessments  |     not assess     |
|         |     i.e.         |     do not       |     grade-level    |
|         |     documented   |     assess       |     content.       |
|         |     and          |     grade-level  |                    |
|         |     validated    |     content.     |                    |
|         |     s            |                  |                    |
|         | tandards-setting |                  |                    |
|         |     process      |                  |                    |
|         |     employed.    |                  |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **IEP** | -   Must include | -   Must include | -   Must include   |
|         |     annual       |     annual       |     annual         |
|         |     measurable   |     measurable   |     measurable IEP |
|         |     IEP goals    |     IEP goals    |     goals.         |
|         |     and          |     that are     |                    |
|         |     benchmarks   |     based on     |                    |
|         |     or short     |     grade-level  |                    |
|         |     term         |     content      |                    |
|         |     objectives.  |     standards.   |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+
| **State | -   Student with | -   Student      | -   Student with a |
| gui     |     the most     |     whose        |     disability who |
| delines |     significant  |     disability   |     cannot take    |
| define  |     cognitive    |     has          |     the regular    |
| who is  |                  |     precluded    |     assessment     |
| eli     |    disabilities. |     the student  |     with           |
| gible** |                  |     from         |                    |
|         | -   IEP Team     |     achieving    |    accommodations. |
|         |     makes the    |     proficiency, |                    |
|         |     decision     |     as           | -   IEP Team makes |
|         |     regarding    |     demonstrated |     the decision   |
|         |     the          |     by objective |     regarding the  |
|         |     appropriate  |     evidence of  |     appropriate    |
|         |     assessment.  |     the          |     assessment.    |
|         |                  |     student's    |                    |
|         |                  |     performance  |                    |
|         |                  |     and whose    |                    |
|         |                  |     progress is  |                    |
|         |                  |     such that,   |                    |
|         |                  |     even if      |                    |
|         |                  |     significant  |                    |
|         |                  |     growth       |                    |
|         |                  |     occurs, the  |                    |
|         |                  |     student's    |                    |
|         |                  |     IEP team is  |                    |
|         |                  |     reasonably   |                    |
|         |                  |     certain that |                    |
|         |                  |     the student  |                    |
|         |                  |     will not     |                    |
|         |                  |     achieve      |                    |
|         |                  |     grade-level  |                    |
|         |                  |     proficiency  |                    |
|         |                  |     within the   |                    |
|         |                  |     year covered |                    |
|         |                  |     by the IEP.  |                    |
|         |                  |                  |                    |
|         |                  | -   IEP Team     |                    |
|         |                  |     makes the    |                    |
|         |                  |     decision     |                    |
|         |                  |     regarding    |                    |
|         |                  |     the          |                    |
|         |                  |     appropriate  |                    |
|         |                  |     assessment.  |                    |
+---------+------------------+------------------+--------------------+

[^1]: Section 612(a)(16)(A) of the IDEA requires that students with
    disabilities participate in all State and district-wide assessments.
    If a State has a more comprehensive program of assessments than
    required by NCLB, the IDEA requires that students with disabilities
    participate in those assessments.

[^2]: Ahearn, E. (2006). [Standards-based IEPs: Implementation in
    Selected States]{.underline}. National Association of State
    Directors of Special Education, 1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 320,
    Alexandria, VA 22314.

[^3]: McLaughlin, M. J., Nolet, V., Rhim, L. M., & Henderson, K. (1999).
    Integrating standards, including all students. [Teaching Exceptional
    Children]{.underline}, 31(3), 66-71.

[^4]: The confidentiality requirements in §300.642(a) of the IDEA
    regulations and §200.7(b) of the Title I regulations require that
    these public reports may not result in disclosure of data
    identifiable to an individual child.