![](media/image1.png)

[alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities]{.smallcaps}

## *Non-Regulatory Guidance*

![](media/image2.png)

August 2005

Alternate Achievement Standards for Students with the Most Significant
Cognitive Disabilities

**[Table of Contents]{.smallcaps}**

*Note**:** This guidance addresses only the implementation of the
December 9, 2003 regulation on alternate achievement standards for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. It does not
address the recently proposed "2 percent" policy or the issue of
"modified" achievement standards.*

**Introduction Page 6**

**A. [Including Students with Disabilities in the State Assessment and
Accountability Program]{.underline} Page 8**

A-1. Why should students with disabilities, including those with the
most significant cognitive disabilities, be included in State assessment
and accountability systems?

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

A-3. What methods should a State employ to ensure that the assessment of
students with disabilities yields valid results?

A-4. What happens if a student uses accommodations in an assessment that
cause a test result to be invalid?

A-5. Is there a conflict between the assessment requirements of NCLB and
of IDEA?

A-6. In what grades must States administer alternate assessments?

**B. [Alternate Assessments]{.underline} Page 15**

B-1. What are alternate assessments?

B-2. What is the typical format for an alternate assessment?

B-3. What are alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement
standards, and how are scores from these assessments incorporated into
the accountability system?

B-4. What are alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards?

B-5. May a State use student progress on IEP goals or an assessment of
functional life skills to meet the Title I regulation requirements?

B-6. Will the State system of alternate assessments be reviewed by the
U.S. Department of Education?

B-7. May an out-of-level assessment be included as an alternate
assessment aligned with grade-level achievement standards?

B-8 May an out-of-level assessment meet the Title I requirements
concerning "alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards?"

B-9. If the State has developed a "vertical scale" that relates scores
from out-of-level assessments to its grade-level academic content and
achievement standards, may a State count the scores of those assessments
in AYP calculations?

**C. [Alternate Achievement Standards]{.underline} Page 20**

C-1. What is an alternate achievement standard?

C-2. Is a State required to develop alternate achievement standards?

C-3. If a State chooses to develop such standards, how can it do that
consistently with the requirements to have tests in grades 3-8 and high
school by 2005-06?

C-4. May States develop multiple alternate achievement standards to
address the range of abilities of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities?

C-5. What is meant by "professional judgment of the highest achievement
standards possible?"

C-6. Who is eligible to participate in alternate assessments based on
alternate achievement standards?

**D. [Individualized Education Program (IEP) Teams]{.underline} Page
23**

D-1. What are State responsibilities in supporting sound IEP team
decisions?

D-2 How does the Title I regulation authorizing alternate achievement
standards affect IEP

team decisions about appropriate assessments?

D-3. What are the requirements for State guidelines to IEP teams about
participation in an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards?

**E. [Alignment]{.underline} Page 26**

E-1. What does it mean to have alternate achievement standards that are
aligned with the State's academic content standards?

E-2. How can alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards be aligned with a State's academic content standards?

**F. [One Percent Cap]{.underline} Page 28**

F-1. What is the 1.0 percent cap?

F-2. How is the 1.0 percent cap calculated?

F-3. How is a student with a disability who is placed in a private
school by an LEA included in the assessment and accountability system?

F-4. Does the 1.0 percent cap limit access of students with disabilities
to alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards?

**G. [Exception]{.underline} Page 29**

G-1. What is the process for a State to request an exception to the 1.0
percent cap?

G-2. How may a State grant an exception to an LEA to exceed the 1.0
percent cap?

G-3. When may a State grant an exception to an LEA?

G-4. Does the 1.0 percent cap put specialized schools and small LEAs at
a disadvantage?

G-5. If an LEA receives an exception, how often must it reapply for that
exception?

**H. [Implementation of the 1.0 Percent Cap: Adequate Yearly
Progress]{.underline} Page 32**

H-1. How does the 1.0 percent cap work in practice?

H-2. What if a State or LEA has more than 1.0 percent of its students
scoring proficient on an alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards?

H-3. What principles should guide the implementation of the 1 percent
cap?

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

H-5. Which educational agency --State or local -- is responsible for
determining how to count proficient scores that exceed the 1.0 percent
cap at the LEA level?

H-6. Does the 1.0 percent cap apply only to LEAs in which the "students
with disabilities" subgroup exceeds the State's minimum group size?

H-7. Do States need to amend their accountability plans in order to use
alternate achievement standards?

H-8. How will the Department monitor the implementation of this
regulation?

**I. [Reporting]{.underline} Page 36**

I-1. How will alternate assessment results based on alternate
achievement standards be reported?

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

I-3. What information do LEAs need to communicate to parents about the
use of alternate achievement standards?

**J. [Conclusion: Additional Responsibilities with Alternate Achievement
Standards ]{.underline}**

**Page 38**

J-1. What additional responsibilities does a State have in connection
with the use of alternate achievement standards?

J-2. What additional responsibilities does an LEA have in connection
with the use of alternate achievement standards?

**Appendix -- Letter from Assistant Secretary Simon dated March 2,
2004**

**[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

This guidance provides States with detailed information about how best
to use and implement alternate achievement standards. The development of
alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities and their use for making adequate yearly progress
(AYP) decisions is authorized under a Department regulation (34 C.F.R.
Part 200) published on December 9, 2003. Since the publication of this
regulation, the Department has announced its intention to issue a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would permit States to assess certain
students with disabilities based on modified achievement standards. Once
the final regulation is issued, we intend to issue additional guidance
that will address how States may implement modified achievement
standards. Consequently, this document does not in any way address the
issue of modified achievement standards but, rather, only provides
guidance on alternate achievement standards for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities. The purpose of the December 9, 2003
regulation was to ensure that students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities are fully included in State accountability
systems and have access to challenging instruction linked to State
content standards. Several critical elements in Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), are designed to ensure that
schools are held accountable for educational results so that each and
every student can achieve to high standards. State assessments are the
NCLB mechanism for determining whether schools have been successful in
teaching students the knowledge and skills defined by the content
standards. States are required to hold all students to the same
standards, except that the December 9, 2003 regulation permits States to
measure the achievement of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities based on alternate achievement standards.

Following the publication of the December 9, 2003 regulation, States
raised a number of questions about: (1) alternate achievement standards;
(2) alternate assessments; (3) the 1.0 percent cap on including
proficient scores based on alternate achievement standards in AYP
decisions; and (4) implementation practices for both States and local
educational agencies (LEAs). This guidance provides answers to those and
other relevant questions. The December 9, 2003 regulation and this
guidance are designed to support two important goals: (1) ensuring
appropriate inclusion of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities in State assessment and accountability systems; and (2)
providing flexibility for schools, LEAs, and States in making AYP
decisions. When implemented properly, the December 9, 2003 regulation
achieves these goals in several ways. First, a State may develop
alternate achievement standards to measure the progress of students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities. Second, the number of
proficient and advanced scores based on alternate achievement standards
included in AYP decisions is limited to 1.0 percent of the number of
students enrolled in tested grades (at the State and LEA levels). This
cap is designed to ensure that there is not an incentive to assess a
student with a disability based on alternate achievement standards if
doing so is not appropriate for that child. This cap protects students
with disabilities and provides a safeguard against assigning
lower-performing students to assessments and curricula that are
inappropriately restricted in scope, thus limiting their educational
opportunities*.* Third, in those legitimate, but limited, circumstances
when the cap should be higher, LEAs may seek an exception to the 1.0
percent cap from their State, and States may seek an exception from the
U.S. Department of Education. This balance between limiting the use of
proficient and advanced scores from alternate assessments based on
alternate achievement standards and providing flexibility when needed
advances the goals of the NCLB.

The Department based its decision to set the 1.0 percent cap on current
prevalence rates of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities and converging scientific evidence from multiple sources,
while allowing for reasonable local variation. While this cap generally
reflects national rates, it may not account for more localized
differences in the number of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities. Factors beyond the control of a school, LEA, or
even a State may cause the number to exceed the national average
percentage. For example, in small LEAs, a proficient score from a single
student may be more than the 1.0 percent limit would allow. Moreover,
certain LEAs or States may have disproportionate numbers of students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities because of proximity to
special facilities or services. In such cases, LEAs or a State may seek
an exception to the 1.0 percent cap. The opportunity to develop and use
alternate achievement standards fundamentally changes the framework for
assessing students with disabilities. For States using this flexibility,
it is no longer sufficient to ask whether a student will be assessed
with the general assessment or an alternate assessment. Instead, State
guidelines must provide guidance to Individualized Education Program
(IEP) teams to determine whether or not a student with disabilities
should be assessed using grade-level achievement standards or, in the
case of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities,
alternate achievement standards. As a result, many States are now
clarifying the role of alternate assessments in their State assessment
systems.

In summary, the use of alternate achievement standards not only ensures
that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are
appropriately included in State accountability systems, but it also
ensures that schools and LEAs receive credit for their achievement.
Prior to the December 9, 2003 regulation, all students (even those with
the most significant cognitive disabilities) had to be assessed based on
grade-level achievement standards. Now, States may use alternate
achievement standards to assess the achievement of students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities. When designed appropriately,
these alternate achievement standards represent high academic standards
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Please
note, throughout this document, there is a reference to "the regulation"
or "new regulation." Unless otherwise noted, that reference is to the
regulation published by the Department on December 9, 2003 (34 C.F.R.
Part 200). This regulation may be found at:
[www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html](http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html).

**A. [INCLUDING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE STATE ASSESSMENT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM]{.underline}**

**A-1. Why should students with disabilities, including those with the
most significant cognitive 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),
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title I of the ESEA
each require inclusion of all students with disabilities in the State
assessment system. Title I further requires that the 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 students who have been in an LEA for a full
academic year be used in calculating AYP for the LEA and the State.
Under the IDEA, States must ensure that all students with disabilities
participate in State and district-wide assessment programs, if necessary
with appropriate accommodations, or take an alternate assessment, and
that the assessment results for all students with disabilities are
publicly reported, regardless of length of enrollment.[^1]

Second, students with disabilities, including those with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, benefit instructionally from such
participation. One State explains the instructional benefits of
including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in
its assessment system: "Some students with disabilities have never been
taught academic skills and concepts, for example, reading, mathematics,
science, and social studies, even at very basic levels. Yet all students
are capable of learning at a level that engages and challenges them.
Teachers who have incorporated learning standards into their instruction
cite unanticipated gains in students' performance and understanding.
Furthermore, some individualized social, communication, motor, and
self-help skills can be practiced during activities based on the
learning standards." (Concerns and Questions about Alternate Assessment.
[www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/QandC.doc](http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/QandC.doc)
January 2005).

Third, to ensure that appropriate resources are dedicated to helping
these students succeed, appropriate measurement of their achievement
needs to be part of the accountability system. Further, when students
with disabilities are part of the accountability system, educators'
expectations for these students are more likely to increase. In such a
system, educators realize that students with disabilities count and can
learn to high levels, just like students who do not have disabilities.
Only by including all students in accountability measures will certain
unintended negative consequences be avoided. For example, research
suggests that excluding students with disabilities from school
accountability measures may lead to dramatically increased rates of
referral of students for special education. (See National Center for
Educational Outcomes Synthesis 26:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis26.htm>)

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

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 required that all students with disabilities
be included in State and district-wide assessment programs. Under the
IDEA, States have been required to include students with disabilities in
regular assessments since 1997 and, beginning July 1, 2000, in alternate
assessments. NCLB requires that all students, including students with
disabilities, be held to grade-level achievement standards when taking
assessments. However, with the publication of the December 9, 2003
regulation, and as determined by each child\'s IEP team, students with
disabilities may, as appropriate, now be assessed through the following
means:

-   The regular grade-level State assessment

-   The regular grade-level State assessment with accommodations, such
    as changes in presentation, response, setting, and timing. For more
    information about accommodations, see
    [http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy16.htm]{.underline}

-   Alternate assessments aligned with grade-level achievement standards

-   Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards.

The 2004 IDEA amendments reinforce that children with disabilities may
be appropriately assessed through one of these four alternatives.

The NPRM on modified achievement standards mentioned in the introduction
to this document, when published in final form, will create an
additional option for the assessment of students with disabilities. The
Department will issue a separate guidance document on modified
achievement standards after the final regulation is published.

**A-3. What methods should a State employ to ensure that the assessment
of students with disabilities yields valid results?**

The Title I regulations at 34 C.F.R. §200.2(b)(2) require that a State's
assessment system 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." In meeting this
requirement, States are responsible for designing assessment systems
that permit all students in the tested grades to be assessed based on
grade-level content and achievement standards. States must first ensure
that the assessment is based on State content standards. Then, States
field-test their assessments by sampling the type of students expected
to participate in the final assessment administration, including
students with a wide range of disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, and students belonging to racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic groups. States should also define the assessment's
measurement constructs precisely and develop accessible test forms that
include 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 children with
disabilities can participate in the regular assessment. Students with
disabilities who are not able to show what they know and can do on the
regular grade-level assessment, even with appropriate accommodations,
must be assessed with an alternate assessment. Such alternate
assessments may be based on grade-level achievement standards or, for
those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, on
alternate achievement standards. States have the responsibility to
ensure that IEP teams have appropriate choices of accommodations to
offer students with disabilities. In general, States bear the
responsibility to provide appropriate accommodations and organize
training for IEP teams to make good decisions for their students with
disabilities.

**A-4. What happens if a student uses accommodations in an assessment
that cause a test result to be invalid?**

In designing State assessment systems, States should work with their
test contractor to build an assessment that is accessible for as many
students as possible and also to develop accommodations to help students
participate. Further, States should develop and widely disseminate
guidance about appropriate accommodations that may be used by students
with disabilities, and ensure that this information is communicated
clearly to school-level educators. The general idea is that the State
has a responsibility to create a testing environment that ensures that
as many students as possible can take the assessment in a way that
produces valid and meaningful results.

IEP teams retain their decision-making authority to determine what, if
any, accommodations are needed for a student to take an assessment. If
an IEP team determines that a student cannot be assessed with the
regular grade-level assessment even with appropriate accommodations, the
IEP team must determine whether the child will be assessed through an
alternate assessment based on grade-level or alternate achievement
standards

Title I includes a measure of participation in the AYP definition.
Specifically, for Title I purposes, a student is only considered to be
participating if the student takes an assessment that meets the
requirements of Section 1111. This includes alternate assessments, which
must either be aligned with standards that meet the requirements for
alternate achievement standards \[refer to §200.1(d)\] or aligned to
grade-level achievement standards. *Therefore, if a student uses an
accommodation that results in an invalid score, the student is
considered to be a non-participant when calculating the participation
rate for AYP purposes. In addition to counting that student as a
non-participant, the State must either choose not to include the score
from the assessment or include it as a "not proficient score" in
calculating the proficiency rate for AYP decisions.* (Note: For IDEA
reporting purposes, the State must report on the participation and
achievement of all students with disabilities who were assessed. See
Part B Annual Performance Report materials at
<http://www.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/partbapr/index.html>**).**

**A-5. Is there a conflict between the assessment requirements of NCLB
and of IDEA?**

No. Both IDEA and NCLB require all students with disabilities to be
assessed. For NCLB accountability purposes, however, a student must
receive a valid score in order to be considered a participant for AYP
purposes. On the other hand, even if a child receives an invalid score
and is considered a non-participant for AYP purposes, that child is
still considered to have "participated" in an assessment for purposes of
IDEA.

**A-6. In what grades must States administer alternate assessments?**

Under NCLB, through the 2004-2005 school year, a State must have
administered alternate assessments in every grade and subject that the
State was currently assessing for Title I assessment and AYP purposes.
At a minimum, through the 2004-2005 school year, States were required to
assess all students in reading/language arts and mathematics at least
once in grades 3 through 5, once in grades 6 through 9, and once in
grades 10 through 12. Beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, States
must assess all students in reading/language arts and mathematics in
each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 10 through 12 and
must have corresponding alternate assessments in both reading/language
arts and mathematics for each of those grades as well. Beginning with
the 2007-2008 school year, States must assess all students in science.
States must administer science assessments, including alternate
assessments, at least once in grades 3 through 5, once in grades 6
through 9, and once in grades 10 through 12.

If these alternate assessments are based on [grade-level achievement
standards]{.underline}, they will assess the same grade-level content as
the test for which they are an alternate. The assessment procedures may
differ from the regular assessment (e.g., include body-of-work or
performance tasks instead of multiple choice) but proficiency on these
alternates is comparable to proficient performance on the regular
assessment for the same grade. The State must provide evidence of
comparability and be able to aggregate the results with results from the
regular assessment.

For alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards in
grades 3 through 8 and at the high school level, the assessment
materials should show a clear link to the content standards for the
grade in which the student is enrolled, although the grade-level content
may be reduced in complexity or modified to reflect pre-requisite
skills. The State may define one or more alternate achievement standards
for proficiency for any grade or cluster of grades. (See question C-3
for additional information.)

The following table explains assessment approaches for students with
disabilities as well as their effect on participation rate and
proficiency calculations for AYP purposes. The table should be read as
follows, using the first row as an example: If a student with a
disability (but not a significant cognitive disability) is assessed
using the regular state assessment (with or without approved
accommodations) that is aligned with grade-level achievement standards
and that produces a valid score, that student is considered a
participant for accountability purposes, and the scores would count for
AYP purposes. This rule would also apply to students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities in a State that does not have
alternate achievement standards in place---their achievement would be
measured against grade-level achievement standards.

**Table 1: Requirements for Use of Assessment Results for Students with
Disabilities**

**in AYP Calculations**

+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| #####               | **Students with        | **Students with the   |
|  Type of Assessment | disabilities, but not  | most significant      |
|                     | the most significant   | cognitive             |
|                     | cognitive disability** | disabilities**        |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| #                   | Student must be        | Applicable in a State |
| Regular assessment  | considered a           | that does not         |
|                     | participant and all    | establish alternate   |
| -   Aligned with    | scores count for AYP   | achievement           |
|     grade-level     | purposes.              | standards.            |
|     achievement     |                        |                       |
|     standards; and  |                        | A student would be    |
|                     |                        | considered a          |
| -   With approved   |                        | participant and       |
|     accommodations  |                        | achievement would be  |
|     and a valid     |                        | measured against      |
|     score           |                        | grade-level           |
|                     |                        | achievement           |
|                     |                        | standards.            |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| #                   | For AYP purposes, a    | Applicable in a State |
|  Regular assessment | State must ensure      | that does not         |
|                     | there is a valid score | establish alternate   |
| -   Aligned with    | for each               | achievement           |
|     grade-level     | participant.[^2]       | standards.            |
|     achievement     |                        |                       |
|     standards; and  | Student must be        | A student must be     |
|                     | considered a           | considered a          |
| -   With            | non-participant if     | non-participant if    |
|     accommodations  | entire score is        | entire score is       |
|     that invalidate | invalid.               | invalid.              |
|     the score       |                        |                       |
|                     | If only part of score  | If only part of score |
|                     | is invalid, the State  | is invalid, the State |
|                     | determines whether the | determines whether    |
|                     | valid portion is       | the valid portion is  |
|                     | sufficient to          | sufficient to         |
|                     | constitute             | constitute            |
|                     | participation and      | participation and     |
|                     | attainment of the      | attainment of the     |
|                     | achievement level.     | achievement level.    |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| #                   |                        |                       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| # A                 | Must be considered a   | Applicable in a State |
| lternate assessment | participant and may be | that does not         |
|                     | proficient in AYP      | establish alternate   |
| -   Aligned with    | calculations           | achievement           |
|     grade-level     |                        | standards. A student  |
|     achievement     |                        | would be considered a |
|     standards;      |                        | participant and       |
|                     |                        | achievement would be  |
| -   With approved   |                        | measured against      |
|     accommodations  |                        | grade-level           |
|     and a valid     |                        | achievement           |
|     score           |                        | standards.            |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| # A                 | If a State permits     | Student is a          |
| lternate assessment | these students to be   | participant and       |
|                     | assessed based on      | proficient score may  |
| -   Based on        | alternate achievement  | be included as        |
|     alternate       | standards, it would    | proficient in AYP     |
|     achievement     | not be consistent with | calculations, subject |
|     standards       | regulation.            | to 1.0 percent cap.   |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
|                     |                        |                       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+
| # O                 | Non-participant        | Non-participant       |
| ther assessments Us |                        |                       |
| ed for AYP Title I  |                        |                       |
| Assessment System,  |                        |                       |
|                     |                        |                       |
| -   Not aligned     |                        |                       |
|     with            |                        |                       |
|     grade-level     |                        |                       |
|     achievement     |                        |                       |
|     standards; and  |                        |                       |
|                     |                        |                       |
| -   Not based on    |                        |                       |
|     alternate       |                        |                       |
|     achievement     |                        |                       |
|     standards       |                        |                       |
+---------------------+------------------------+-----------------------+

**B. [ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS]{.underline}**

**B-1. What are alternate assessments?**

An alternate assessment is an assessment designed for the small number
of students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the
regular grade-level State assessment, even with appropriate
accommodations. Under the IDEA Amendments of 1997, all States were
required to implement an alternate assessment not later than the
2000-2001 school year. To qualify as an assessment under Title I, an
alternate assessment must be aligned with the State's content standards,
must yield results separately in both reading/language arts and
mathematics, and must be designed and implemented in a manner that
supports use of the results as an indicator of AYP. Alternate
assessments can measure progress based on alternate achievement
standards (see Section C) and can also measure proficiency based on
grade-level achievement standards. Alternate assessments may be needed
for students who have a broad variety of disabilities; consequently, a
State may employ more than one alternate assessment.

When used as part of the State assessment program, alternate assessments
must 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 as well as to
regular State assessments.[^3]

**B-2. What is the typical format for an alternate assessment?**

There is no typical or single format for an alternate assessment. Some
alternate assessments are built on portfolios of student work or
activities that demonstrate knowledge through performance of specific
tasks. An alternate assessment may include materials collected under a
variety of circumstances, including (1) teacher observation of the
student; (2) samples of student work produced during regular classroom
instruction that demonstrate mastery of specific instructional
strategies; and (3) standardized performance tasks produced in an
"on-demand" setting, such as completion of an assigned task on test day.
These are not requirements. They are only examples of different types of
alternate assessments. States have considerable flexibility in designing
the most appropriate format for alternate assessments.

**B-3. What are alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement
standards, and how are scores from these assessments incorporated into
the accountability system?**

An alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards
(regardless of the format, see B-2) must address the same content and
hold students to the same expectations as does the regular test. As part
of the standards and assessment peer review process under Title I, a
State must document that its results from an alternate assessment based
on grade-level achievement standards are comparable in meaning to its
results from the regular assessment for the same grade level. Further,
alternate assessments need to meet the general Title I requirements for
assessments. For AYP calculations, results from an alternate assessment
based on grade-level achievement standards should be treated in the same
manner as results from the regular assessment. The 1.0 percent cap does
not apply to those results.

**B-4. What are alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards?**

An alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards may
cover a narrower range of content (e.g., cover fewer objectives under
each content standard) and reflect a different set of expectations in
the areas of reading/language arts, mathematics, and science than do
regular assessments or alternate assessments based on grade-level
achievement standards. The questions on an alternate assessment might be
simpler than those on a regular assessment or the expectations for how
well students know particular content standards may be less complex but
still challenging for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities. If a State chooses to use such assessments, it must
establish alternate achievement standards through a documented
standards-setting process; the assessments based on alternate
achievement standards must yield separate results for reading/language
arts, mathematics, and (beginning in the 2007-08 school year) science.
Proficient and advanced scores in reading/language arts and mathematics
from an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards
may be used in AYP decisions in the same manner as any other scores,
subject to the 1.0 percent cap at the LEA and State levels. (See Section
F.) \[Note: Science is not included in AYP decisions unless a State has
chosen the science assessment as its "other academic indicator" for
elementary and middle schools.\]

**B-5. May a State use student progress on IEP goals or an assessment of
functional life skills to meet the Title I regulation requirements?**

No. There are at least two reasons why IEP goals or functional life
skills are not appropriate achievement measures for AYP purposes.

First, IEP goals are individualized for each student, and a student's
progress toward each goal is measured for purposes of reporting progress
to parents and for making individualized decisions about the special
education and related services a student receives. In addition, for AYP
determinations, test results must ensure consistency in the judgments
made about schools. IEP goals are not designed for this purpose.

Second, as required by Title I, schools are accountable for student
achievement only in the content areas of reading/language arts and
mathematics. IEP goals may address a broad range of individualized
instructional needs, as well as behavioral and developmental needs, and
might not be based on the State's academic content standards. IEP goals
may cover a range of issues beyond reading/language arts and
mathematics, such as behavior, social skills, or the use of adaptive
equipment, and, as such, an examination of how well a student met his or
her IEP goals is not synonymous with achievement measured by an
alternate assessment for AYP purposes. In addition, IEP goals might not
be aligned to State standards, and it is not possible to set achievement
standards based on those goals. While States and LEAs may develop
assessments that measure students' progress toward IEP goals, such
assessments are not required by Title I. In addition, while acquisition
of functional life skills may be an important component of some
students\' IEPs, it is also critical that such students have access to
the general curriculum and that their achievement be counted for AYP
purposes.

**B-6. Will the State system of alternate assessments be reviewed by the
U.S. Department of Education?**

Yes. Alternate assessments developed for Title I purposes will be
reviewed through the Department's peer review of State assessment
systems. The procedures are set forth in the Standards and Assessment
Peer Review Guidance document. See
[www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.doc]{.underline}

**B-7. May an out-of-level assessment be included as an alternate
assessment aligned with grade-level achievement standards?**

No. An out-of-level assessment cannot be included as an alternate
assessment because it is not aligned with grade-level achievement
standards. Out-of-level testing means assessing students enrolled in a
specific grade level with tests designed for students at lower grade
levels. By definition, an out-of-level assessment cannot meet the
requirements of a grade-level assessment because it does not measure
mastery of grade-level content or achievement standards. Out-of-level
testing is often associated with lower expectations for students with
disabilities, tracking such students into lower-level curricula with
limited opportunities. It may also limit student opportunities for
advancing to the next grade or graduating with a regular high school
diploma. 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 level in which a student is enrolled. (See Table 1.)

**B-8. May an out-of-level assessment meet the Title I requirements
concerning "alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards"?**

Under the December 9, 2003 regulations, an out-of-level assessment may
be used only as an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards to assess students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities, and then only if it meets three key Title I requirements.
First, the State must use a documented and validated standards-setting
process to set the alternate achievement standards for such an
assessment. Second, the achievement standards on which out-of-level
assessments are based must meet the requirements of 34 C.F.R. §200.1(d)
for alternate achievement standards. That is, the achievement standards
associated with out-of-level assessments must be aligned with the
State's academic content standards, promote access to the general
curriculum, and reflect professional judgment of the highest achievement
standards. (See C-5.) Third, scores of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who take an out-of-level test based
on alternate achievement standards must be included within the 1.0
percent cap for the purposes of calculating AYP, because the achievement
standards associated with the content and skills measured by
out-of-level assessments are clearly different from the grade-level
achievement standards for the target grade.

Previous guidance from the Department's Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) indicated that out-of-level assessments were not
allowable alternate assessments \[OSEP Memo 00-24 dated August 24, 2000,
see question 18: http://www.dssc.org/frc/AssessmentQ&A.html\]. This new
guidance, however, recognizes that out-of-level assessments that are
administered to students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities and that meet the requirements of the regulation (as
outlined above) may be considered to be alternate assessments based on
alternate achievement standards and proficient scores on these
assessments may count for AYP purposes, under the one percent cap. *An
out-of-level assessment that fails to meet these requirements produces
invalid results, and students taking such tests must be counted as
"non-participants" for AYP purposes.* (See Table 1.)

**B-9. 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 a 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 achievement standards or alternate 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.

For students tested based on grade-level achievement standards, an
assessment must be aligned with grade-level content expectations and
include measures of higher-order thinking skills and understanding. By
definition, an out-of-level assessment does not cover the same content
as the grade-level test. Use of a vertical scale cannot ensure that a
student has been tested against grade-level standards. Further, for
students tested against alternate achievement standards, these standards
must be defined using a "documented and validated standards-setting
process." Use of a vertical scale alone is not sufficient to define
alternate achievement standards and to meet the requirements of 34
C.F.R. §200.1(d).

C.  **[ALTERNATE ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS]{.underline}**

**C-1. What is an alternate achievement standard?**

An alternate achievement standard sets an expectation of performance
that differs in complexity from a grade-level achievement standard. The
December 9, 2003 regulations clarify that a State is permitted to use
alternate achievement standards to evaluate the performance of students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

In general, alternate achievement standards must be aligned with a
State's academic content standards, promote access to the general
curriculum, and reflect professional judgment of the highest achievement
standards possible. (See 34 C.F.R. §200.1(d).)

The characteristics of an alternate achievement standard are the same as
those described in the Title I assessment regulations for a grade-level
achievement standard. That is, they are aligned with the State's
academic content standards (although they may reflect prerequisite
skills rather than grade-level skills); describe at least three levels
of attainment; include descriptions of the competencies associated with
each achievement level; and include assessment scores (cut scores) that
differentiate among the achievement levels and a description of the
rationale and procedures use to determine each achievement level. These
standards will be considered during the Department's peer review of each
State's standards and assessment system under NCLB.

**C-2. Is a State required to develop alternate achievement standards?**

No. Section 1111(b)(1) of Title I requires a State to adopt challenging
student achievement standards and to apply the same standards "to all
schools and children in the State." While all children can learn
challenging content, evaluating that learning through the use of
alternate achievement standards is appropriate for a small, limited
percentage of students who are within one or more of the existing
categories of disability under the IDEA (e.g., autism, multiple
disabilities, traumatic brain injury), and whose cognitive impairments
may prevent them from attaining grade-level achievement standards, even
with the very best instruction. Therefore, the regulations permit States
to measure the achievement of a limited percentage of students -- those
with the most significant cognitive disabilities -- against challenging,
but alternate, achievement standards. [^4]

If a State chooses not to use alternate achievement standards, it must
still incorporate the assessment scores of all students with
disabilities in AYP determinations, including those students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities.

**C-3. If a State chooses to develop such standards, how can it do that
consistently with the requirements to have tests in grades 3-8 and high
school by 2005-06?**

If a State chooses to establish alternate achievement standards, such
standards must be aligned with the State\'s academic content standard
for the grade in which the student is enrolled (or, in the case of
students in un-graded classrooms, the grade level commensurate to the
student\'s age). (See section E-1 for further details.)

There must be a clearly stated definition of proficiency available for
students assessed on the basis of alternate achievement standards, and
their scores must be reported in relation to this standard. Because
these students are often in un-graded classrooms, the idea of
grade-by-grade alternate achievement standards for them is somewhat
ambiguous. The alternate achievement standards must be challenging for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and defined in
a way that supports individual growth through a linkage to different
content across grades. When examined across grades, however, alternate
achievement standards are not expected to show the same clearly defined
differences in cognitive complexity as the grade-level achievement
standards set for the regular test.

A State may thus define alternate achievement standards for grade
clusters (e.g., grades 3-5, 6-9 or 10-12) rather than for individual
grades. Such standards, however, must reflect the professional judgment
of the highest achievement standards possible for this group of
students. For example, it is not acceptable for a State to develop a
single test that employs a single rubric to define a single proficiency
standard that is applied to all students enrolled in grades 3 through 12
who are tested on the basis of an alternate achievement standard. Such
an arrangement fails to reflect the changes in content that would be
expected across grades and cannot provide an appropriate challenge for
older or more capable students.

Additional information about this issue can be found in the Department's
peer review guidance for standards and assessment:
[www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.doc](http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.doc)[.]{.underline}

**C-4. May States develop multiple alternate achievement standards to
address the range of abilities of students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities?**

Yes. A State may set more than one alternate achievement standard. If,
however, a State chooses to define multiple alternate achievement
standards, it must employ commonly accepted professional practices to
define the standards; it must document the relationship among the
alternate achievement standards as part of its coherent assessment plan;
and for AYP purposes it must apply the 1.0 percent cap to all proficient
scores based on alternate achievement standards that meet the
requirements in 34 C.F.R. §200.1(d). One reason why a State might choose
to develop more than one alternate achievement standard is to promote
access to the general curriculum and to ensure that students are
appropriately challenged to meet the highest standards possible.

**C-5. What is meant by "professional judgment of the highest
achievement standards possible?"**

Title I requires that, for the general assessment, States establish
challenging academic content standards that contain rigorous content and
encourage the teaching of advanced skills, and challenging student
achievement standards that determine how well students are mastering
this content. States must create the achievement standards with all
students in mind, so that they are realistic for a wide variety of
individuals. The standards should represent a consensus among
experienced teachers, parents, and other appropriate individuals
regarding the performance expected after appropriate student effort in a
challenging instructional program. Students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities who participate in an alternate assessment based
on alternate achievement standards are entitled to the same deliberate
approach to defining achievement standards that represent a rigorous but
realistic challenge for this heterogeneous group of students and a
challenging long-range goal for their school and LEA. The term "highest
achievement standards possible" is intended to reflect that the
alternate achievement standards should be no less challenging for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities than the
standards set for all other students.

**C-6. Who is eligible to participate in alternate assessments based on
alternate achievement standards?**

Only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities may be
assessed based on alternate achievement standards. The regulation does
not create a new category of disability. Rather, the Department intended
the term "students with the most significant cognitive disabilities" to
include that small number of students who are (1) within one or more of
the existing categories of disability under the IDEA (e.g., autism,
multiple disabilities, traumatic brain injury, etc.); and (2) whose
cognitive impairments may prevent them from attaining grade-level
achievement standards, even with the very best instruction.

It is the State's responsibility to define which students have the most
significant cognitive disabilities. It also is the State's
responsibility to establish clear and appropriate guidelines for IEP
teams to use when deciding if an alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards is justified for an individual child. These
guidelines should provide parameters and direction to ensure that
students are not assessed based on alternate achievement standards
merely because of their placement outside the regular classroom, their
disability category, or their racial or economic background. (See D-3
for more information about these guidelines.)

In most schools, students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities represent a small portion of students with disabilities who
would appropriately participate in an assessment based on alternate
achievement standards; all other students with disabilities must be
assessed against grade-level standards. In general, the Department
estimates that about 9 percent of students with disabilities
(approximately one percent of all students) have significant cognitive
disabilities that qualify them to participate in an assessment based on
alternate achievement standards.

**D. [INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM (IEP) TEAMS]{.underline}**

**D-1. What are State responsibilities in supporting sound IEP team
decisions?**

For assessments under Title I, an IEP team operates in an environment in
which the academic content and achievement standards and assessments are
set by the State, the technical qualities of the State assessments are
well established (and include policies on the use of accommodations that
do not invalidate test results on all or part of the assessment), and
the State has provided guidelines regarding eligibility for alternate
assessments.

As specified through IDEA, IEP teams have ultimate responsibility for
making instructional, curricular, and assessment decisions for each
student with a disability. However, in fulfilling this responsibility,
the State plays an important supportive role. States, as required by the
December 9, 2003 regulation, must provide appropriate guidance to IEP
teams about alternate assessments, accommodations, and alternate
achievement standards. Further the IDEA, as amended in 2004, also
requires that States have developed and implemented guidelines for
appropriate accommodations and for the participation of children with
disabilities in alternate assessments. For example, the State must
provide IEP teams the list of the accommodations approved for use with
the statewide assessment. The State can also support sound IEP team
decisions by evaluating the effectiveness of accommodations and by
encouraging local monitoring of test administration to ensure that
students actually receive the accommodations recommended. Regular
analysis of accommodations use may also indicate a need for additional
training.

**D-2. How does the Title I regulation authorizing alternate achievement
standards affect IEP team decisions about appropriate assessments?**

The IEP team responsibility is unchanged by this regulation; the IEP
team continues to determine how a student will participate in a State
assessment of student achievement. It is important to keep in mind that
the IEP team decides how a student participates, not whether a student
participates in the assessment at all. The IEP team is also charged with
determining whether accommodations for the assessments required under
Title I are needed by each individual student to enable the student to
participate in the assessment. If the IEP team determines that a student
will not participate in the regular assessment, the team is required to
identify why the assessment is not appropriate for the child and how the
child will be assessed, such as through an alternate assessment.

**D-3. What are the requirements for State guidelines to IEP teams about
participation in an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards?**

Title I regulations require States to develop and disseminate guidelines
to IEP teams concerning statewide assessments, appropriate
accommodations, and, if applicable, alternate assessments based on
alternate achievement standards. These State guidelines should provide
appropriate information for IEP teams about how to select accommodations
for students with disabilities when they are participating in the
statewide assessment system. These guidelines, which are required by
Title I regulations, should include information on which test
accommodations are valid and which accommodations in administration will
invalidate part or all of the assessment. The guidance should clearly
state whether accommodations that invalidate the assessment are
permissible. IDEA, as amended in 2004, also requires that States have
guidelines on the provision of appropriate accommodations.

The guidance should also emphasize that students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities should have access to the general
curriculum; an exclusively functional curriculum will not serve these
students well. Further, the State must communicate to IEP teams that
they should make decisions for each individual student, and that those
decisions should not be based on disability category or other similar
qualities. As the state of the art continues to improve in this area, we
have identified some ideas that States have included in these IEP
guidelines.

-   Criteria that each student must meet before participating in
    alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards

-   Examples or case study descriptions of students who might be
    eligible to participate in such an assessment

-   Accommodations that are available for the assessments, and any
    special instructions that IEP teams need to know if such
    accommodations require special permission or materials (e.g.,
    Braille editions of the assessment)

-   Flow charts for determining which accommodations are appropriate
    and/or which assessment is appropriate

-   Timelines for making these decisions

-   Any consequences that affect a student as a result of taking an
    alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (e.g.,
    in some States, students are not eligible for a regular high school
    diploma if they take this type of assessment)

-   Any consequences that affect a test score as a result of using a
    particular accommodation

-   Approaches for ensuring students have access to the general
    curriculum

-   Commonly used definitions

-   Information about how results are reported for individual student
    reports and in school or district report cards

Obviously, this list is not exhaustive and States will have their own
approach for providing these guidelines, but these are some common
elements in guidelines to IEP teams. As another resource, the National
Center for Educational Outcomes has a webpage, which provides links to
State guidelines on this issue:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/Participation/StatesParticipation.htm>

**E. [ALIGNMENT]{.underline}**

**E-1. What does it mean to have alternate achievement standards that
are aligned with the State's academic content standards?**

Alternate achievement standards are substantially different expectations
for student mastery of grade-level content, but they may not be defined
as skills that are wholly independent of a State's academic content
standards. Setting alternate achievement standards is the final step in
an assessment development process that includes consideration of the
content to be assessed, the manner in which student understanding of
that content will be demonstrated, the method for scoring student
responses/products, and the manner in which student results will be
reported. States will find it necessary to consider each component,
beginning with the content on which students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities will be assessed. This should be content that is
clearly related to grade-level content, although it may be restricted in
scope or complexity or take the form of introductory or pre-requisite
skills. The task of defining alternate achievement standards in
reading/language arts, mathematics, or science for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities should begin with consideration
of the State's academic content standards for the grade in which the
student is enrolled, then adapting or "extending" those content
standards to reflect instructional activities appropriate for this group
of students. The next step should be designing an assessment that allows
these students to show what they have learned along with a method of
scoring the assessment. Finally, a group of experienced special
educators and, as appropriate, parents and other individuals, should be
convened to examine a sufficiently large sample of student responses and
to determine the type of response(s) that is regarded as proficient for
this group of students.

**E-2. How can alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards be aligned with a State's academic content standards?**

In practice, alignment with the State\'s academic content standards
means that a State has defined clearly the connection between the
instructional content appropriate for non-disabled students and the
related knowledge and skills that serve as the basis for a definition of
proficient achievement for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.

One State, for example, has developed a curriculum framework for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities that moves
from grade-level expectations to gradually less complex versions of the
standard. This continuum provides a range of entry points at which a
student with disabilities can access the content at an appropriately
challenging level. For example, it lists the following skills for grades
3 through 4 content standards under Mathematics Operations: "Select, use
and explain various meanings and models of multiplication and the
division of whole numbers. Understand and use the inverse relationship
between the two operations." The State's standards document also
identifies the essence of the standard in several brief statements,
e.g., "understand the meaning of multiplication and division; and
represent multiplication and division problems concretely." The State
then provides several illustrations of the knowledge and skills
appropriate for use in the alternate assessment. These range from the
less complex, "Illustrate the concept of multiplication using groups of
objects," to more complex knowledge that approaches grade-level
expectations, such as "Identify the commutative property of
multiplication using number sentences (3 x 5 = 5 x 3)." See
<http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/rg/math.doc>.

Alternate achievement standards may include prerequisite or enabling
skills that are part of a continuum of skills that culminates in
grade-level proficiency. The use of alternate achievement standards,
however, must not result in inappropriate placements or assignment of
students to a curriculum that does not include academic content.

**F. [ONE PERCENT CAP]{.underline}**

**F-1. What is the 1.0 percent cap?**

Under the December 9, 2003 regulation, when measuring AYP, States and
LEAs have the flexibility to count the proficient scores of students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take alternate
assessments based on alternate achievement standards---so long as the
number of those proficient scores does not exceed 1.0 percent of
[all]{.underline} students in the grades assessed (about nine percent of
students with disabilities) at the LEA and State levels. The 1.0 percent
cap is based on current incidence rates of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities, allowing for reasonable local
variation in prevalence.

The 1.0 percent cap does not apply at the school level. Some LEAs may
deliver 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
students who may be counted as scoring proficient or advanced on
alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards would
prove unworkable at a school level and not be in the best interests of
those students.

The 1.0 percent cap does not restrict the number of students who may
participate in an alternate assessment. It does limit the number of
proficient and advanced scores based on alternate achievement standards
that may be used in the calculation of AYP. A limit is required to
ensure a thoughtful application of alternate achievement standards and
to protect IEP teams from pressure to assign low-performing students to
assessments and curricula that are inappropriately restricted in scope,
thus limiting educational opportunity for these students.

**F-2. How is the 1.0 percent cap calculated?**

The 1.0 percent cap is based on the number of students enrolled in the
tested grades. This means that if a State is presently testing in only
three grades, the 1.0 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.

**F-3. How is a student with a disability who is placed in a private
school by an LEA included in the assessment and accountability system?**

A student with a disability who is publicly placed in a private school
is included in the assessment and accountability system in three ways.
First, under 34 C.F.R. §300.401(b), these students 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
these students, and the students must participate in the State's
academic assessment system. Second, the assessment results from students
with disabilities who are placed in or referred to a private school or
facility by a public agency, as a means for 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 them in the private school or facility and for the State. Third,
such students are considered as enrolled in the district when
determining how many scores can be included, subject to the 1.0 percent
cap, as proficient or advanced based on alternate achievement standards.

**F-4. Does the 1.0 percent cap limit access of students with
disabilities to alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards?**

No. The rule does not limit the number of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who may take an alternate assessment
based on alternate achievement standards when that is appropriate. It
addresses only the inclusion of proficient and advanced scores from
alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards in AYP
calculations.

**G. [EXCEPTION]{.underline}**

**G-1. What is the process for a State to request an exception to the
1.0 percent cap?**

A State may request a slightly higher cap from the Secretary if the
State can meet several criteria established in the Title I regulations.
Those criteria address such issues as incidence rates of students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities; circumstances in the State
that explain a higher incidence rate (such as specialized health
programs or facilities); and documentation that the State has
implemented several safeguards that limit the inappropriate use of
alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards.

If a State requests an exception to the 1.0 percent cap, the State must
document that it is fully and effectively implementing the procedural
safeguards set out in 34 C.F.R. §200.6(a)(2)(iii) to demonstrate that it
is appropriately including students with disabilities in its assessment
system. The documentation would include information about the following
(summary of §200.6(a)(2)(iii)):

-   Guidelines for IEP teams to determine when a child's significant
    cognitive disability justifies the alternate assessment based on
    alternate achievement standards.

-   Information about how parents are informed that their child will be
    assessed based on alternate achievement standards, including
    information about the implications of participation in the alternate
    assessment if the State has identified consequences for students
    based on assessment results (e.g., if the State requires a student
    to pass an assessment based on grade-level achievement standards to
    graduate).

-   Documentation of the number and percent of students taking an
    alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards,
    alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement standards,
    and regular assessments (with or without accommodations).

-   Documentation that describes how students with the most significant
    cognitive disabilities are included in the general curriculum and
    that shows how alternate assessments are aligned with that
    curriculum.

-   Documentation of efforts taken by the State to develop, disseminate
    information on, and promote the use of appropriate accommodations.

-   Documentation of efforts (such as professional development or
    guidance documents) taken to ensure teachers and other staff know
    how to administer assessments, including appropriate use of
    accommodations.

Because of these safeguards, the Secretary expects that it will be
necessary to grant (and has so far granted) exceptions only for small
increments above the 1.0 percent cap. A State should indicate in its
request the amount of time for which it is seeking the exception.

An exception to the 1.0 percent cap should be requested in writing no
less than three months before final AYP decisions are made. If a State
does not meet that deadline, the Department may not be able to consider
that request before the State's deadline for identifying schools for
improvement. Attached as an Appendix to this guidance is the March 2,
2004 letter sent by Assistant Secretary Ray Simon, which provides
additional guidance to States on this process. The letter can also be
found at:
[www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/csso030204.html](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/csso030204.html)

**G-2. How may a State grant an exception to an LEA to exceed the 1.0
percent cap?**

Using a similar process to the one described in G-1, a State may grant
permission to an LEA to exceed the 1.0 percent cap. States do not need
to apply for an exception from the Department in order to grant
exceptions to their LEAs. 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. Exceptions should not be granted on the basis of poor or
inaccurate identification or the inappropriate use of alternate
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 documentation
that the LEA has implemented several safeguards that limit the
inappropriate use of alternate 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 these students 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-3. When 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 may not delay the identification of schools for
improvement.

**G-4. Does the 1.0 percent cap put specialized schools and small LEAs
at a disadvantage?**

No. For small LEAs, there is an opportunity to seek an exception to the
1.0 percent cap. The 1.0 percent cap on proficient and advanced scores
based on alternate achievement standards applies specifically at the
State and LEA levels, although scores must be treated the same for AYP
purposes at the State, LEA, and school levels. An extraordinarily
effective school that draws students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities from across the LEA, or from outside the LEA, may exceed
the limit so long as the total number of proficient and advanced scores
based on alternate achievement standards does not exceed the 1.0 percent
cap within the LEA. The LEA has considerable discretion in accommodating
such schools when determining how not to exceed the 1.0 percent cap.

**G-5. If an LEA receives an exception, how often must it reapply for
that exception?**

As stated in 34 C.F.R. §200.13(c)(3)(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.

H.  **[IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1.0 PERCENT CAP:]{.underline}**

> **[ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS]{.underline}**

**H-1. How does the 1.0 percent cap work in practice?**

The 1.0 percent cap (calculated at the State and LEA levels) is based on
the number of students enrolled in the grade(s) tested. The following
example illustrates how the policy should work in practice. As
determined by the 1.0 percent cap, a LEA with l0,000 students in the
grades assessed may count for AYP purposes no more than 100 students
scoring proficient or advanced on an alternate assessment based on
alternate achievement standards. This LEA has 150 students taking the
alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards, but only
100 students score at the proficient level on this assessment. Since the
number of proficient scores does not exceed the cap, all such scores
from the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards
may be included as proficient in the relevant schools' AYP
determinations. The remaining 50 non-proficient scores would also be
included in the schools' AYP calculations. Because only 100 of the 150
of the students assessed with an alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards are proficient, the LEA would not exceed the cap.

H-2. What if a State or LEA has more than 1.0 percent of its students
scoring proficient on an alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards?

The 1.0 percent cap (calculated at the State and LEA levels) is a limit
on the number of proficient or advanced scores based on alternate
achievement standards that may count as proficient or advanced for AYP
purposes. The following example illustrates the implications for an LEA
where more than 1.0 percent of its students score proficient on an
alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. The 1.0
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 100
students scoring as proficient on an alternate assessment based on
alternate achievement standards. If 150 students in this LEA score
proficient or advanced on an alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards, (and the LEA has not received an exception from
the State to exceed the 1.0 percent cap), the LEA must:

1)  Determine which 50 proficient 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).

**H-3. What principles should guide the implementation of the 1 percent
cap?**

A few principles should guide the implementation of this process. First,
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. Second, all scores based
on alternate achievement standards must be included in school, LEA, and
State AYP calculations. Moreover, individual student's results from such
assessments must be counted in all appropriate subgroups. Third, 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.
Fourth, in those circumstances in which more than 1.0 percent of the
students score proficient or advanced on an alternate assessment based
on alternate 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 alternate achievement standards. This
ensures that schools do not have an incentive to increase
inappropriately the number of students assessed with an alternate
assessment based on alternate achievement standards.

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

There are several models for the distribution of proficient scores that
exceed the 1.0 percent cap. All proficient scores based on alternate
achievement standards that exceed 1.0 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." 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:
[ihdi.uky.edu/msrrc/publicat.htm](../ihdi.uky.edu/msrrc/publicat.htm).

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

-   In school A, there are 50 proficient scores

-   In school B, there are 50 proficient scores

-   In school C, there are 25 proficient scores

-   In school D, there are 25 proficient scores

Because more than 1.0 percent of this LEA's students scored proficient
based on alternate achievement standards, 50 of the 150 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 35 proficient scores, and 17 redistributed
    non-proficient scores

-   In school B, there are 35 proficient scores, and 17 redistributed
    non-proficient scores

-   In school C, there are 15 proficient scores, and 8 redistributed
    non-proficient scores

-   In school D, there are 15 proficient scores, and 8 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 alternate
achievement standards. The Martinez and Olsen paper explains several
models for redistributing the non-proficient scores.

**H-5. Which educational agency --State or local -- is responsible for
determining how to count proficient scores that exceed the 1.0 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 \[Section 1116(a)(1)\]. 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 1.0
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-6. Does the 1.0 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 with a
significant cognitive disability who takes an alternate assessment
aligned with alternate 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 "all students" and major/racial ethnic groups.

**H-7. Do States need to amend their accountability plans in order to
use alternate achievement standards?**

Yes, if a State decides to assess students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities based on alternate achievement standards and its
accountability plan does not so indicate. A letter sent by Assistant
Secretary Ray Simon to chief State school officers on February 5, 2004,
provides guidance on submitting plan amendments. It can be found at the
following website:
[www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/amproc.doc](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/amproc.doc).
If you have questions about the need to amend a State accountability
plan, please contact your State's liaison in the Student Achievement and
School Accountability Programs in the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (OESE).

**H-8. How will the Department monitor the implementation of this
regulation?**

The Department's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the
Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs in OESE will
coordinate their efforts to monitor State and LEA implementation of
alternate achievement standards and the 1.0 percent cap. In addition,
the Secretary believes that it is crucial that States closely monitor
how LEAs are using alternate achievement standards and the 1.0 percent
cap both generally and more specifically in the case of an LEA that
receives an exception to the 1.0 percent cap.

The Department will monitor implementation of this regulation in other
key ways. First, the regulation requires States to report separately the
number and percentage of students taking an alternate assessment based
on either grade-level achievement standards, or on alternate achievement
standards, and to report the number and percentage of students taking
regular assessments (including assessments taken with accommodations).
Second, OESE will review these assessments and testing practices during
its peer review of State standards and assessments. Third, the
Department intends to issue a report on the implementation of this
regulation after two years of implementation.

# REPORTING

**I-1. How will alternate assessment results based on alternate
achievement standards be reported?**

NCLB requires two kinds of assessment reporting -- reports to parents,
teachers, and principals and reports to the public.

1)  [Reports to parents, teachers, and principals]{.underline}: NCLB
    requires that a State's assessment system, including its alternate
    assessments, 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 should report the actual scores
    received by students who participate in an alternate assessment
    based on alternate achievement standards, even if a proficient 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. 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 of public report cards 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 should report the actual score received by students who
        participate in an alternate assessment based on alternate
        achievement standards, even if proficient scores have been
        redistributed as not proficient for AYP purposes.

    B.  In the accountability section of public report cards, States and
        LEAs should 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 should report the scores of
        students taking an alternate assessment based on alternate
        achievement standards as redistributed after considering the 1.0
        percent cap.

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

As part of the Consolidated State Performance Report, States must
annually report the following 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 (1) in the regular
grade-level assessment with or without accommodations; (2) in an
alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards; and (3)
in an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards.

**I-3. What information do LEAs need to communicate to parents about the
use of alternate achievement standards?**

Through the IEP process, parents must be informed of the potential
consequences, if any, for their child if he or she participates in an
alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. 34 C.F.R.
§200.6(a)(iii)(A)(*2*). For example, a parent must be informed if a
State will not allow a student to graduate with a regular high school
diploma if he or she takes an alternate assessment based on alternate
achievement standards.

If student scores are counted as not proficient instead of proficient
because the LEA or State exceeds the 1.0 percent cap, parents must
receive the student's actual score. 34 C.F.R. §200.13(c)(4)(v). Further,
LEAs or States are not required to tell parents that the student's score
was counted differently for AYP purposes.

**J. [CONCLUSION: ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES WITH ALTERNATE ACHIEVEMENT
STANDARDS]{.underline}**

J-1. What additional responsibilities does a State have in connection
with the use of alternate achievement standards?

The definition of alternate achievement standards is the final step in a
process that includes determination of the appropriate academic content
to be assessed, the development of uniform assessment materials and
procedures, and standardized scoring methods. Information about the
development process and related instructional materials should be
disseminated by the State to support effective instruction for students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities. If the State permits
local development of assessments based on alternate achievement
standards, it is responsible for ensuring that these assessments meet
the requirements of the regulation and also the requirements for use as
local assessments in 34 C.F.R. §200.3(b).

States should ensure that alternate achievement standards and alternate
assessments based on these standards are implemented appropriately
throughout the State. The regulation outlines the various actions that
States need to take to implement these standards.

-   Develop clear guidelines for IEP teams to help them determine how to
    assess students with disabilities;

-   Provide easily understandable information to parents about how their
    student will be assessed;

-   Provide guidance to teachers and other educators about how to
    include students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in
    the general curriculum; and

-   Organize professional development ­for teachers and other educators
    on the use of accommodations and administering alternate
    assessments.

**J-2. What additional responsibilities does an LEA have in connection
with the use of alternate achievement standards?**

An LEA is responsible for managing its IEP teams' decisions regarding
who takes an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards. If an LEA does not manage the cap well, and permits schools
to assess an inappropriately large number of students with an alternate
assessment based on alternate achievement standards, the LEA might
significantly exceed the cap. In such a situation a large number of
non-proficient scores would be redistributed among the schools that
administered an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards. This would likely create negative consequences for schools
that administer an alternate assessment.

To avoid such a scenario, the LEA should fulfill its management
responsibilities regarding the use of alternate assessments. First, the
LEA must provide information to school personnel and IEP teams about the
regular State assessment, the appropriate use of accommodations, and
alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. State
guidelines for use of alternate achievement standards should be
communicated to local schools early in the school year to ensure
consistency between instruction and assessment and to prevent confusion
at the time of test administration. A reasonable expectation is that no
more than 9 percent of students receiving special education services
would be tested against alternate achievement standards, unless a school
has a disproportionately high number of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities (because of special services) or is
particularly small. An LEA may choose to provide individual schools with
preliminary estimates of the number of students who are likely to be
tested with an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards, based on the characteristics of the school\'s student
population and existing State guidelines for participation. Second, the
LEA should ensure that appropriate staff receive training to support
sound IEP decisions about which students should participate in an
alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. These
decisions should always be made on a case-by-case basis and should be
based on providing access to the most challenging curriculum possible
for the individual student. Finally, the LEA should monitor
implementation of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement
standards in schools throughout the LEA to ensure that alternate
achievement standards are being used in a manner consistent with the
best instructional practices known for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.

[^1]: IDEA requires students with disabilities to participate in all
    State assessments. If a State has a more comprehensive assessment
    program than required by NCLB, IDEA requires that students with
    disabilities participate in those assessments.

[^2]: For purposes of IDEA compliance, a student may still be considered
    to be a participant in a statewide assessment even if the score is
    invalid for AYP.

[^3]: The NPRM on modified achievement standards mentioned in the
    introduction to this document will create an additional option for
    the assessment of students with disabilities. A separate guidance
    document will be issued on modified achievement standards after the
    final regulation is published.

[^4]: The NPRM on modified achievement standards mentioned in the
    introduction to this document will create an additional option for
    the assessment of students with disabilities. A separate guidance
    document will be issued on modified achievement standards after the
    final regulation is published.