August 24, 2000

Contact Persons:

Name: David Malouf

Telephone: (202) 205-8111

Name: JoLeta Reynolds

Telephone: (202) 205-5507

OSEP 00-24

[MEMORANDUM]{.underline}

TO: State Directors of Special Education

FROM: Judith E. Heumann

> Assistant Secretary
>
> Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
>
> Kenneth R. Warlick
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

SUBJECT: Questions and Answers about Provisions in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 Related to Students with
Disabilities and State and District-wide Assessments

**[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

Requirements for including all children in assessments are based on a
number of federal laws, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(Title I), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Amendments of 1997 (IDEA). Assessment is often associated with direct
individual benefits such as promotion, graduation, and access to
educational services. In addition, assessment is an integral aspect of
educational accountability systems that provide valuable information
which benefits individual students by measuring individual progress
against standards or by evaluating programs. Because of the benefits
that accrue as the result of assessment, exclusion from assessments on
the basis of disability generally would violate Section 504 and ADA.
[^1]

Title I and IDEA include a number of specific requirements for including
all children in assessments. In adding these requirements, Congress
recognized that many students were not experiencing levels of
achievement in school that would enable them to successfully pursue
postsecondary educational or competitive work opportunities. Students
with disabilities, minority children, migrant and homeless children,
children with limited English proficiency and children in poverty were
especially at risk. Many of these children\'s educational programs were
marked by low expectations, limited accountability for results, and
exposure to a poorer curriculum than that offered to other children.

Congress's findings for the IDEA 1997 amendments noted that \"the
implementation of this Act has been impeded by low expectations... Over
twenty years of research and experience has demonstrated that the
education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by
having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access in
the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible.\"

According to the Report from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
of May 9, 1997, IDEA provided parents and educators with tools to
"promote improved educational results for children with disabilities
through early intervention, preschool, and educational experiences that
prepare them for later educational challenges and employment." The
Report further notes that:

> The new focus is intended to produce attention to the accommodations
> and adjustments necessary for disabled children to access the general
> education curriculum and the special services which may be necessary
> for appropriate participation...
>
> Children with disabilities must be included in State and district-wide
> assessments of student progress with individual modifications and
> accommodations as needed. Thus, the bill requires that the IEP include
> a statement of any individual modifications in the administration of
> State and district-wide assessments. The committee knows that
> excluding children with disabilities from these assessments severely
> limits and in some cases prevents children with disabilities, through
> no fault of their own, from continuing on to post-secondary education.
>
> The committee reaffirms the existing Federal Law requirement that
> children with disabilities participate in State and district-wide
> assessments. This will assist parents in judging if their child is
> improving with regard to his or her academic achievement, just as the
> parents of non-disabled children do.

Participation of students with disabilities in State and district-wide
assessments is not participation just for the sake of participation.
Participation in these assessments should lead to improved teaching and
learning. Participation in assessments goes hand in hand with access to
the general curriculum.

Including all children in assessment programs can help to ensure a high
quality educational experience for each student by creating high
education expectations for all children and accountability for the
educational results of all students. It is critically important that
schools know how successful they are in preparing all students to meet
high standards. Parents need to know this as well. The inclusion of all
children in State and district-wide assessment programs will provide
significant information for improving instruction.

However, it is important that teachers have the training they need in
order to improve instruction based upon the data. Seventy percent of the
state directors of special education have identified professional
development in the area of assessment implications and how the IEP will
reflect a student\'s progress in the general curriculum as a major
challenge.

If we are not improving educational results for all children, we need to
do things differently than we have in the past. That is why it is so
important to disaggregate data about student performance. We must pay
attention to the data and make changes as needed to our approaches to
ensure that results for all children are improving.

We also need to be willing to rethink and change some of our policies if
we find that they arbitrarily deny benefits to students.

This guidance is provided in response to frequently asked questions
submitted to the Office of Special Education Program by parents,
teachers, assessment coordinators, State education agency staff, and
other policy makers. In some cases, the responses provided are
clarifications of legal issues. In other instances, the responses are
intended to stimulate reflection about the implications of policies and
practices for students with disabilities. Clearly, high expectations for
students entail high expectations for teachers and schools. This
document is intended not only to provide guidance in meeting specific
legal requirements, but also to help achieve the benefits of these
provisions for students with disabilities.

**Accountability**

**1. Are students with disabilities required to participate in a State's
accountability system?**

Although IDEA makes no specific reference as to how States include
children with disabilities in the State accountability system, the IDEA
requires States to establish performance goals and indicators for
children with disabilities\--consistent to the maximum extent
appropriate with other goals and standards for all children established
by the State\--and to report on progress toward meeting those goals.

Under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in the
2000-01 school year, each State must have a State assessment system that
serves as the primary means for determining whether schools and
districts receiving Title I funds are making adequate yearly progress
toward enabling all students in Title I schools to reach high standards.
All students with disabilities in those schools must be included in the
State assessment system, and the scores of students with disabilities
must be included in the assessment system for purposes of public
reporting and school and district accountability. Under Title I, State
assessment systems must assign a score, for accountability purposes, to
every student who has attended school within a single school district
for a full academic year. And, States must explain how scores from
alternate assessments are integrated into their accountability systems.
[^2]

**2. How do States and LEAs use their assessment results?**

Under IDEA, States must use information about the performance of
children with disabilities in State and district-wide assessment
programs to revise their State Improvement Plans as needed to improve
their performance. Under Title I, States and LEAs also use the results
to review the performance of LEAs and schools, respectively, and to
identify LEAs and schools in need of improvement. States and LEAs also
use results for rewards and sanctions for schools and districts, and
some for decisions about student promotion or graduation. Assessment
results can also be used in planning teacher training, summer school and
after school programs, and in reviewing alignment between assessments
and curriculum. These are State and local district decisions. In
addition, IEP teams can consider individual assessment results as they
develop programs for students with disabilities.

**IEP Processes**

**3. What is the role of the IEP team in determining whether the child
will participate in general or alternate assessments?**

The IEP team determines [how]{.underline} the child participates in
State and district-wide assessments of student achievement. The IEP team
determines if any individual modifications in administration are needed
in order for the student to participate in the assessment. If the IEP
team determines that the child will not participate in a particular
State or district-wide assessment of student achievement (or part of an
assessment), the IEP team states why the assessment is not appropriate
for the child and how the child will be assessed. IEP teams should have
the level of expertise needed to make these decisions in an effective
manner.

**4. May IEP teams exempt children with disabilities from participating
in the State or district-wide assessment program?**

No. The IEP team determines HOW individual students with disabilities
participate in assessment programs, NOT WHETHER. The only students with
disabilities who are exempted from participation in general State and
district-wide assessment programs are students with disabilities
convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons
(34 CFR §300.311(b)(1)). With this statutory exception, there should be
no language in State or district assessment guidelines, rules, or
regulations that permits IEP teams to exempt students from State or
district-wide assessment programs.

Section 504 prohibits exclusion from participation of, denial of
benefits to, or discrimination against, individuals with disabilities on
the basis of their disability in federally assisted programs or
activities. Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified individual
with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from
participation in or be denied the benefits of the services**,**
programs, or activities of a public entity or be subjected to
discrimination by such an entity.

Inclusion in assessments provides valuable information which benefits
students either by indicating individual progress against standards or
in evaluating educational programs. In some States, participation in
assessments is a means to access benefits such as promotion and
graduation. Given these benefits, exclusion from assessment programs
based on disability would potentially violate Section 504 and Title II
of the ADA.

**5. Can the IEP statement of how the child will participate in State
and district-wide assessments of student achievement be changed without
reconvening the IEP team?**

No. If the IEP team wishes to modify a provision of the IEP, it must
meet again to make the change.

**Parental Permission**

**6. Is parental permission required for children with disabilities to
participate in State and district-wide assessment programs if parental
permission is not required for the participation of non-disabled
students?**

No. If parental permission is not required for participation in the
State and district-wide assessment programs for non-disabled children,
it is not required for children with disabilities. However, parents of
children with disabilities as members of the IEP team will be involved
in IEP team decisions on how an individual child will participate in
such assessment programs.

**7. If a State permits parents of non-disabled children to choose not
to have their child participate in State or district-wide assessments,
do parents of children with disabilities have the same right in regard
to assessments and alternate assessments?**

Yes. Parents of a child with a disability should have the same right to
"opt out" as parents of non-disabled students consistent with any
allowable justification criteria established by the SEA or LEA. Denying
parents of children with disabilities the same rights afforded parents
of non-disabled children would raise concerns about discrimination on
the basis of disability. However, parents and students should be
informed of the consequences of participation and non-participation in
State or district-wide assessments. For example, parents should know
that State and district-wide assessments can improve accountability and
promote services that better meet the needs of the participating
students, while non-participation may limit opportunities for promotion,
graduation and access to programs. Parents should not be pressured to
"opt out" of assessment programs. Most States already keep track of
students who are "opted out" of assessment programs by parents. States
and districts should keep track of parent-requested "opt out" exemptions
for students with disabilities disaggregated from those for students
without disabilities. This should help the State to determine if "opting
out" pressure is occurring.

**Accommodations and Modifications**

**8. The words \"accommodations\" and \"modifications\" are both used in
the federal statute and regulations, but the precise meanings are
unclear. Will OSEP differentiate the two and explain the relationship
between them?**

There is no universal agreement about the definitions of these terms,
but OSEP recognizes that there has been an evolution of assessment
terminology and increased agreement about such terminology since the
IDEA Amendments of 1997. When referring to assessments, the term
"accommodation" is commonly used to define changes in format, response,
setting, timing, or scheduling that do not alter in any significant way
what the test measures or the comparability of scores. In contrast, when
changes in the assessment alter what the test is supposed to measure or
the comparability of scores, terms such as "modification", "nonstandard
administration", "non-approved or non-aggregatable modifications" are
often used. However, some States use the terms "modification" or
"modified" to refer to changes commonly thought of as "accommodations."

The IDEA statute and regulations use the terms "accommodations" and
"modifications in administration" in connection with State and
district-wide assessment programs and assessments of student
achievement. And, the Analysis of Comments and Changes that accompanied
the publication of the final regulations uses the terms "individual
modifications" and "necessary modifications" as well. However, the
definitions of these terms as used in the statute and regulations are
not intended to correspond with the evolving usage of these terms in the
field of assessment as discussed in the previous paragraph. For example,
34 CFR §300.347 requires that IEPs include a statement of "modifications
in the administration" of assessments of student achievement. In this
context, "modifications in administration" should be viewed as a general
term that would include both accommodations and modifications, as they
are commonly used in assessment practice. Further, 34 CFR §300.138
requires that children with disabilities be provided with
"accommodations and modifications in administration, if necessary",
which would include the full range of accommodations and modifications,
as they are commonly used in assessment practice.

**9. Can the SEA or LEA limit the authority of the IEP team to select
individual accommodations and modifications in administration needed for
a child to participate in the assessment?**

No. 34 CFR §300.347(a) (5)(I) requires that the IEP team have the
responsibility and the authority to determine what, if any, individual
modifications in the administration of State or district-wide
assessments of student achievement are needed in order for a particular
child with a disability to participate in the assessment. If the IEP
Team determines that individual modifications in the administration of
State or district-wide assessments of student achievement are needed,
the Team must include a statement of any such modifications in the IEP.
In addition, §300.138(a) requires that appropriate accommodations and
modifications in administration of State or district-wide assessments
must be provided if necessary to ensure the participation of children
with disabilities in those assessments. As part of each State\'s general
supervision responsibility under §300.600, it must ensure that these
requirements are carried out. States that have developed a comprehensive
policy governing the use of testing accommodations (including the
conditions and instructions for appropriate use of specific
accommodations and how scores are to be reported and used) need to
ensure that they are consistent with this IDEA requirement

At the same time, IEP teams need to understand and consider the
implications of SEA/LEA policies on the reporting and use of scores in
addressing what individual modifications and accommodations are
appropriate for an individual child with a disability. SEAs and LEAs
should carefully consider the intended and unintended consequences of
accommodation policies that may impact on student opportunities such as
promotion or graduation (e.g. receipt of a regular diploma, a
certificate of attendance, etc.). Parents and students need to be fully
informed of any consequences of such policies.

A major challenge for assessment programs is how to maintain assessment
rigor (reliability and validity of assessments), implement and protect
the individual rights of students, and simultaneously ensure that
schools teach all children what they need to know and to do (knowledge
and skills). Much of the current research on accommodations and
modifications is inconclusive, so in many cases the impact of specific
accommodations is not known. Continued research is underway, and more is
needed.

A number of legal principles and concerns apply if a student may be
denied benefits such as promotion or graduation because of questionable
validation of accommodations. One solution suggested by the National
Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota is
to collect and use additional evidence that allows the student to
demonstrate competency in lieu of a single test score. Further
information is available from the NCEO (612-626-1530;
<http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO>).

**Alternate Assessments**

**10. What is an alternate assessment?**

Generally, an alternate assessment is understood to mean an assessment
designed for those students with disabilities who are unable to
participate in general large-scale assessments used by a school district
or State, even when accommodations or modifications are provided. The
alternate assessment provides a mechanism for students, including those
with the most significant disabilities, to participate in and benefit
from assessment programs.

Alternate assessments need to be aligned with the general curriculum
standards set for all students and should not be assumed appropriate
only for those students with significant cognitive impairments. The need
for alternate assessments depends on the individual needs of the child,
not the category of the child's disability. Although it is expected that
the number of students participating in alternate assessments will be
relatively small, participation in alternate assessments should not, in
and of itself, preclude students from access to the same benefits
available to non-disabled students for their participation. Thus, the
alternate assessment is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of
difficult-to-assess students with disabilities who may need the
alternate assessment to demonstrate competency for benefits such as
promotion or a diploma. It may also enable IEP teams, including informed
parents, to make choices about appropriate participation that may lead
to an IEP diploma or other type of certification.

**11. When does a State (or LEA) need to conduct an alternate
assessment?**

All SEAs and LEAs must provide alternate assessments for all State and
district-wide assessments conducted beginning no later than July 1,
2000.

**12. Do the requirements to establish participation guidelines for
alternate assessments and to develop alternate assessments apply to both
SEAs and LEAs?**

Yes. 34 CFR §300.138 specifically requires inclusion of children with
disabilities in both State and district-wide assessment programs and
requires both the SEA and the LEA, as appropriate, to develop guidelines
for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate
assessments for those children who cannot participate in State and
district-wide assessments, and develop alternate assessments.

Of course, if an LEA does not conduct district-wide assessments other
than those that are part of the State assessment program, then the LEA
would follow SEA guidelines and use the SEA alternate assessment(s). The
requirements apply to district-wide assessments regardless of whether or
not there is a State assessment.

**13. If the SEA has developed guidelines for participation in State
alternate assessments, can the LEA use those guidelines to meet its LEA
responsibility?**

There is nothing that prohibits the LEA from adopting the SEA guidelines
if the SEA guidelines are consistent with the assessment program
objectives of LEA district-wide assessments. However, if the
district-wide assessment is used for significantly different purposes
than the State assessment, the LEA should ensure that the participation
guidelines developed for the State assessment are consistent with the
purposes of the district-wide assessment, or should develop guidelines
consistent with the purposes of its district-wide assessment.

**14. Does a State need to have an alternate assessment for each content
area assessed in the regular assessment program?**

The number of alternate assessments is a State decision. As in many
State and district-wide assessment programs, the assessment may consist
of multiple components or batteries. The alternate assessment(s) should
at a minimum assess the broad content areas such as communication,
mathematics, social studies, science, etc. assessed in the State or
district-wide assessment. The alternate assessment may assess additional
content, including functional skills, as determined necessary by the
State or local district. Functional skills can also be aligned to State
standards as real world indicators of progress toward those standards.
Title I requires that at a minimum reading/language arts and math are
assessed, but Title I also requires that if other subject areas are
assessed by the State for Title I purposes, then all students in Title I
schools in the grades assessed need to be assessed in those content
areas as well. The purpose of an alternate assessment should match at a
minimum the purpose of the assessment to which it is intended to serve
as an alternate.

**15. Can LEAs use the State alternate assessment to meet its obligation
to develop an alternate to its district-wide assessment?**

The issue is alignment between the alternate assessment and the
large-scale assessment. Districts must adopt local guidelines for
participation in alternate assessments and they must develop and conduct
alternate assessments no later than July 1, 2000. Whether an alternate
assessment developed by the State for use with a State-wide assessment
is also an appropriate alternate assessment to the local district-wide
assessment depends upon the type of alternate assessment selected, the
nature of the district-wide assessment, the content measured, and the
purposes for which the results will be used. The purpose of an alternate
assessment should match at a minimum the purpose of the assessment to
which it is intended to serve as an alternate.

**16. Can LEAs use their own alternate assessment or must they use the
State\'s alternate assessment?**

In States with statewide assessment programs, local districts must
administer the State alternate assessment. Moreover, local districts
must develop and conduct alternate assessments if they have
district-wide assessments, or use the State alternate if appropriate.

**Out-of-Level Testing**

**17. Is out-of-level testing by States acceptable?**

"Out-of-level testing" means assessing students in one grade level using
versions of tests that were designed for students in other (usually
lower) grade levels. Some States allow out-of-level testing in an effort
to limit student frustration and provide appropriate assessment levels.
Although IDEA does not specifically prohibit its use, out-of-level
testing may be problematic for several reasons when used for
accountability purposes. 34 CFR §300.137 requires that the performance
goals for children with disabilities should be consistent, to the
maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and standards for all
children established by the State. The purpose is to maintain high
expectations and provide coherent information about student attainment
of the State's content and student performance standards.

Out-of-level testing may not assess the same content standards at the
same levels as are assessed in the "grade-level" assessment. Thus,
unless the out-of-level test is designed to yield scores referenced to
the appropriate grade-level standards, out-of-level testing may not
provide coherent information about student attainment of the State or
LEA content and student performance standards. Also, many assessment
experts argue that out-of-level testing produces scores that are (even
using transformation formulations) insufficiently comparable to allow
aggregation, as required by 34 CFR §300.139. If out-of-level tests are
used, IEP teams need training and clear information about the
statistical appropriateness of administering such tests at each possible
level different from the student's grade level.

Out-of-level tests may lower expectations for students, prevent them
from demonstrating their full competence, subject them to a lower-level
curriculum, and restrict their access to the general curriculum.
Important goals of both IDEA and Title I are to maintain high
expectations for all children and to ensure that teachers and schools
are able to teach diverse learners. Students with disabilities are
entitled to the same rich curriculum as their non-disabled peers.

One source for additional information about out-of-level testing is the
National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of
Minnesota (612-626-1530; http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO).

**18. Can an out-of-level test be considered an \"alternate\"
assessment?**

Out-of-level tests are considered modified administrations of the State
or district-wide assessments rather than alternate assessments, and
scores on out-of-level tests should be converted to reflect performance
at grade level and reported as performance at the grade level at which
the child is placed unless such reporting would be statistically
inappropriate.

**Reporting**

**19. What reports on assessment are required by IDEA?**

34 CFR §300.137 requires States to report to the Secretary and to the
public every two years on the progress of the State and of the children
with disabilities in the State toward meeting performance goals
including performance on assessments, drop-out rates, and graduation
rates. Additionally, 34 CFR §300.139 requires the SEA to report to the
public, in the same frequency and detail as it reports for non-disabled
children, on the number and performance results of children with
disabilities participating in regular and alternate assessments and to
include in those reports aggregated data that include the participation
of children with disabilities together with all other children and
disaggregated data on the performance of children with disabilities.

**20. IDEA refers to children with disabilities being included in
"general State and district-wide assessment programs," but only requires
that State education agencies report to the public on the participation
and performance of children with disabilities on assessments. Are local
education agencies also required to report to the public in a similar
fashion?**

The IDEA requirement is for reporting by the State education agency.
Many States have similar requirements for local education agencies to
report similarly on local assessment programs. Under IDEA, this is a
State decision.

**21. What are the requirements for aggregation and disaggregation of
data? Are aggregation and disaggregation required at the State level
only? State level and district level only? Or State level, district
level, and site level?**

Under IDEA, States must report aggregated data that include the
performance of children with disabilities together with all other
children and disaggregated data on the performance of children with
disabilities. There is no requirement for disaggregation by category of
disability, just disaggregation of the performance of children with
disabilities separate from the performance of non-disabled children.
These reports must be made with the same frequency and in the same
detail as reports on the assessment of non-disabled children. For
example, if school level results are reported, then school level results
for students with disabilities generally must be disaggregated. It is
the SEA's decision how to collect sufficient data from LEAs to meet the
Federal SEA reporting requirement consistent with these provisions.

**22. Are performance results from alternate assessments required to be
aggregated with data from general assessments?**

It is important for States to report performance data from alternate
assessments in a way that ensures that all children with disabilities
are included in the accountability benefits of State and district-wide
assessments. Thus, OSEP encourages States to aggregate scores from the
alternate assessment with scores from the general assessment whenever
appropriate.

**23. What is meant by "statistically sound" in 34 CRF 300.139?**

There are at least two issues for consideration. One has to do with the
sample size. In some instances, for example if a State chooses to
disaggregate by disability categories (not a federal requirement) or
report on the performance of students with disabilities in small school
districts, the relatively small number of students in that category or
district might raise questions about statistical soundness if
generalizations are to be made about student performance. A second issue
centers around the reporting of performance for students who take
non-standard or modified administrations of an assessment. In such
cases, there may be questions about the validity of the assessment and
its comparability to the standard assessment.

OSEP is concerned about students with disabilities who are excluded from
assessment reports because of questions about statistical soundness.
Public reports are a key component of many educational accountability
systems, and exclusion from these reports may deny students with
disabilities the benefits of these systems and fail to hold schools and
LEAs accountable for their performance. It is important for States,
LEAs, and test developers to provide a range of modifications in
administration that preserve the validity and comparability of
assessments so that student performance can be fully reported. In cases
where validity or comparability are found to be significantly weakened,
full reporting may be achieved through the collection of additional
evidence, as discussed under Question 9.

**24. Can a State or local education agency provide individual
performance results to its schools, or would this violate the
requirement to avoid disclosure of performance results identifiable to
individual children?**

The reference to disclosure simply refers to the inappropriateness of
public reports that deal with samples so small as to publicly disclose
the performance of individual students, not to providing results to
schools for students served by the school.

**25. To avoid publicly disclosing performance results identifiable to
individual students, can a State or local education agency adjust the
administrative levels at which it reports these results? For example,
can it report the alternate assessment at the district level even though
the general assessment is reported at the school level?**

Yes, but only if necessary to avoid publicly disclosing results
identifiable to individual students.

**Monitoring**

**26. How will OSEP monitor compliance with IDEA 97 assessment
requirements?**

OSEP's Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process focuses on compliance
and results. There are several mechanisms that OSEP employs to review a
State's performance in these areas. Through the State's self-assessment
and OSEP's data review, OSEP examines results-oriented data such as
drop-out rates, graduation rates, and performance on assessments. These
data will be used to determine the level of intervention of OSEP's
monitoring activities.

Federal requirements related to assessment can be found at 34 CFR
§§300.138 (Participation in Assessments), 300.139 (Reports) and
300.347(a)(5)(i) (Content of IEP). These requirements will be examined
in several ways through OSEP\'s Continuous Improvement Monitoring
Process. As part of the State\'s self-assessment process, information
from State and district-wide assessment should be used by the State\'s
monitoring Steering Committee to evaluate the State\'s level of
implementation and performance. For example, States should examine in
their self-assessment, the number of students taking the Statewide
assessments and the number participating in alternate assessments. Also,
performance on assessments is an important indicator for a State to use
in evaluating and improving results for children with disabilities.

As part of data collection in the SEA and in LEAs, OSEP monitors will
review documents and interview regarding participation in State and
district-wide assessments. OSEP will gather data to determine that the
State has developed alternate assessments and provided guidelines for
the participation of children with disabilities in alternate
assessments. In addition, OSEP will review the extent to which alternate
assessments are aligned with general curriculum standards. OSEP will
gather information about participation of children with disabilities in
Statewide and district-wide assessment programs, including information
that is reported to the public - aggregated and disaggregated - in the
same frequency and in the same detail as for non-disabled. Finally, OSEP
will review whether the IEP team determines any modifications in
administration in State or district-wide assessments.

cc: Chief State School Officers

Congressional Staff

Federal Resource Center

Independent Living Centers

National Disability Organizations

Parent Training Centers

Part C Coordinators

Part C Lead Agencies

Protection and Advocacy Agencies

Regional Resource Centers

RSA Regional Commissioners

[^1]: Source: Dear Colleague letter by Judith E. Heumann, Assistant
    Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and
    Norma V. Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U. S.
    Department of Education, September 29, 1997.

[^2]: Source: Letter sent to Chief State School Officers by Michael
    Cohen, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education,
    U. S. Department of Education, April 7, 2000.