United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority 

Member, Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate 

NO CHILD LEFT 

BEHIND ACT 

Most Students with 

Disabilities 

Participated in 

Statewide 

Assessments, but 

Inclusion Options 

Could Be Improved 

July 2005 

 

The information contained in this report has been updated in 

GAO-06-194R, dated October 28, 2005. 

GAO-05-618 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-618.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Marnie S. 

Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or shaulm@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-618, a report to the 

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on 

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, 

U.S. Senate 

July 2005

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 

Most Students with Disabilities 

Participated in Statewide Assessments, 

but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved 

In the 2003-04 school year, at least 95 percent of students with disabilities 

participated in statewide reading assessments in 41 of the 49 states that 

provided data. Students with disabilities were most often included in the 

regular reading assessment, and relatively few took alternate assessments. 

Nationwide, the percentage of students with disabilities who were excluded 

from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was 5 

percent, but varied across states, ranging from about 2 percent to 10 percent 

in 2002. Among the reasons for exclusion were differences in 

accommodations between states and the NAEP and variation in decisions 

among states about who should take the NAEP. 

Participation Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year for 

Students with Disabilities 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz. Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak. Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak. Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

Va.

W.

Va. Ky.

Source: State data reported to Education in consolidated reports.

S.C.

Tenn.

At least 95% of the students

with disabilities participated

Did not provide 

usable data

Under 95% of students with 

disabilities participated

Maine

National experts and officials in the four states we studied told us that 

designing and implementing alternate assessments was difficult because 

these assessments were relatively new and the abilities of students assessed 

varied widely. Officials in two states said they were not using an alternate 

assessment measured on grade-level standards because they were unfamiliar 

with such assessment models or because of concerns that the assessment 

would not appropriately measure achievement. In addition, learning the 

skills to administer alternate assessments was time-consuming for teachers, 

as was administering the assessment. 

Education provided support to states on including students with disabilities 

in statewide assessments in a number of ways, including disseminating 

guidance through its Web site. However, a number of state officials told us 

that the regulations and guidance did not provide illustrative examples of 

alternate assessments and how they could be used to appropriately assess 

students with disabilities. In addition, our review of Education’s Web site 

revealed that information on certain topics was difficult to locate. 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 has focused attention on 

improving the academic 

achievement of all students, 

including more than 6 million 

students with disabilities and 

requires that all students be 

assessed. Students with disabilities 

may be included through 

accommodations, such as extended 

time, or alternate assessments, 

such as teacher observation of 

student performance. To provide 

information about the participation 

of students with disabilities in 

statewide assessments, GAO 

determined (1) the extent to which 

students with disabilities were 

included in statewide assessments; 

(2) what issues selected states 

faced in implementing alternate 

assessments; and (3) how the U.S. 

Department of Education 

(Education) supported states in 

their efforts to assess students with 

disabilities. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education 

explore ways to make information 

about inclusion of students with 

disabilities more accessible on its 

Web site and work with states, 

particularly those with high 

exclusion rates, to explore 

strategies to reduce the number of 

students with disabilities who are 

excluded from the NAEP 

assessment. In comments, 

Education officials noted that they 

were taking actions that would 

address our recommendations. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4

Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Reading 

Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year 8 

States Faced Challenges in Designing and Preparing Teachers to 

Administer Alternate Assessments 19 

Education Disseminated Information to States on Assessing 

Students with Disabilities, but Some State Officials Reported the 

Need for Alternate Assessment Examples 24 

Conclusions 27

Recommendations for Executive Action 28 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28 

Appendix I Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in 

State Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 

2003-04 School Year, by State 30 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 33 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37 

Related GAO Products 38 

Tables 

Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards 7 

Table 2: Massachusetts’ Data on How Students with Different 

Types of Disabilities Were Included in Statewide Reading 

Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year 14 

Table 3: Accommodations Provided in Some Regular Statewide 

Assessments but Not for NAEP 18 

Table 4. Selected Alternate Assessments Used in Study States and 

Descriptions 20

Page i GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Figures 

Figure 1: Distribution of State and the District of Columbia 

Participation Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in 

the 2003-04 School Year 10 

Figure 2: Distribution of States and the District of Columbia by the 

Percentages of Students with Disabilities Who Received

Alternate Assessments Measuring Grade-Level and Below 

Grade-Level Standards in the 2003-04 School Year 13 

Figure 3: Example of How a Below Grade-Level Standard Differs in 

Complexity from a Grade-Level Standard 15 

Abbreviations 

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

IEP Individualized Education Program 

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress 

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 20, 2005

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Health, Education, 

 Labor, and Pensions 

United States Senate 

In the 2003-04 school year, more than 6 million students with disabilities—

approximately 13 percent of all students—attended U.S. public schools. In

an effort to improve the academic achievement of all students, including 

those with disabilities, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001 

requires that states, districts, and schools are held accountable for their 

students’ academic performance. Like all students, those with disabilities 

must be included in statewide assessments of achievement under the 

NCLBA. Assessments for students with disabilities are also required under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). States must 

provide options to ensure that students with disabilities are included in 

annual assessments. States need to offer accommodations to meet these 

students’ needs, for example, by giving them more time to take the same 

assessment as other students. States also are required to offer alternate 

assessments that measure students’ performance at the same grade-level 

standards or at below grade-level standards.1

 For example, students with 

the most significant cognitive disabilities could be assessed on their 

knowledge of academic content, such as fractions, by having to split 

groups of objects into two, three, or equal parts. Separately, under 

NCLBA, states participate periodically in the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress (NAEP), which provides a national picture of 

student academic achievement and a common measure of student 

achievement across states. 

Questions have been raised, however, about the extent to which students 

with disabilities have been included in statewide assessments and whether 

these assessments accurately reflected student performance. Given your 

interest in these issues, we are providing you with information about (1) 

the extent to which students with disabilities were included in statewide 

assessments; (2) what issues selected states faced in implementing 

 1

 The term below grade-level standards refers to alternate achievement standards. 

Page 1 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
alternate assessments; and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education 

(Education) supported states in their efforts to assess students with 

disabilities. 

To obtain this information we used multiple data collection methods. To 

provide a national perspective, we reviewed and verified data on statewide 

assessments for the most recent school year available, 2003-04, from the 

State Consolidated Performance Reports provided by state officials to 

Education. Complete data were not available for mathematics 

assessments. Thus, we only verified reading-assessment data.2

 This 

included data from 48 states and the District of Columbia on the 

participation rate of students with disabilities in assessments and data

from 50 states and the District of Columbia on the types of assessments in 

which students with disabilities were included. Two states did not provide 

participation rate data in a usable format for students with disabilities, and 

one of these states also did not do so for all students. We also interviewed 

national education organization representatives and assessment experts. 

Second, we made site visits to four states—Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, 

and Oregon—to collect in-depth information from state, district, and local 

officials. We selected these states to obtain variance in the participation 

rate of students with disabilities in statewide assessments, the type of 

alternate assessment data available in each state, innovative state 

approaches to assessment, and the availability of state assessment data for 

students with disabilities. We reviewed several national studies on the 

effects of students being excluded from NAEP and determined they were

reliable for the purposes for which we used them. We also analyzed 

Education’s documents and Web site, legislation, and other materials 

related to the assessment requirements for students with disabilities. We 

conducted our work between September 2004 and June 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading 

assessments in the 2003-04 school year, according to data collected by

Education. Of the 48 reporting states and the District of Columbia, 41 

states reported that at least 95 percent of students with disabilities 

Results in Brief 

 2

 To assess the reliability of the reading data, we contacted all 50 states plus the District of

Columbia to confirm and clarify the data provided. We corrected identified reporting errors

and determined that the resulting data set was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report. The 2003-04 school year was the first year for which states were asked to report on

the participation rate of students with disabilities in statewide assessments. 

Page 2 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
participated in the statewide reading assessment. The remaining states and 

the District of Columbia reported lower participation rates. Two states did 

not provide participation rate data for students with disabilities in a usable 

format. State participation rates for students with disabilities were 

generally similar to participation rates for all students. Most students with 

disabilities took regular reading assessments, and relatively few students 

with disabilities took alternate assessments. Two of the four states that we 

visited, Massachusetts and Oregon, used innovative approaches to 

measure the performance of students with disabilities, according to 

special education experts. For example, Massachusetts used an alternate

assessment that lets students with widely varying abilities demonstrate 

their understanding of the same content standards. Nationwide, about 5 

percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the NAEP 

reading assessment. Because states had different exclusion rates, ranging

from 2 percent to 10 percent in the 2002 NAEP, comparisons of student 

achievement across states may have limitations. 

State officials reported that providing alternate assessments was 

challenging, particularly because of the time and expertise required to 

design such assessments and the training necessary for teachers to 

implement them. National experts and officials in the four states we 

studied told us that designing and implementing alternate assessments 

that measured achievement of students with disabilities was difficult for a 

number of reasons, including these students’ widely varying abilities. 

Officials in two site-visit states also reported that they were not using 

alternate assessments based on grade-level standards because officials 

were unaware of models of such assessments that appropriately measured 

achievement. In addition, national experts and officials told us that 

teachers needed training over a period of 2 to 3 years to administer 

alternate assessments properly. Teachers we spoke with told us that 

learning the skills to administer an alternate assessment was timeconsuming, as was administering the assessment.

Education provided support to states on including students with 

disabilities in statewide assessments through actions such as 

disseminating guidance, reviewing state assessment plans, awarding 

grants to help states improve their assessment systems, and conducting 

on-site visits. In assisting states, Education made extensive use of its 

NCLBA Web site, newsletters, and presentations at national education 

conferences to disseminate information on the requirements for including 

students with disabilities in statewide assessments. The department also 

funded two national centers that had, as part of their focus, the 

assessment of students with disabilities—the National Center on 

Page 3 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Educational Outcomes and the National Alternate Assessment Center. 

However, a number of state education officials told us that some specific 

information on how alternate assessments based on grade-level standards 

could be used appropriately to assess students with disabilities was 

lacking. Further, representatives from a national education organization 

said that many states were unfamiliar with models of this type and that 

examples would be helpful. In addition, we found that Education’s 

regulations and clarifying information did not provide illustrative 

examples of what alternate assessments looked like and how they have 

been used to appropriately assess students with disabilities using gradelevel or below grade-level standards. During our review, we told Education 

about states’ alternate assessment concerns. In May 2005, Education 

announced additional efforts to help states use alternate assessments. As 

part of this effort, Education plans to develop training materials and 

provide comprehensive technical assistance to states that lack alternate 

assessment plans for students with disabilities. In addition, our review of 

Education’s Web site disclosed that information on certain topics related 

to the assessment of students with disabilities was difficult to locate. For 

example, there was no Web link that associated the alternate assessment 

information on the NCLBA section of the Web site with related 

information on the research, development, and use of these assessments 

that is available on other sections of Education’s Web site. 

We are recommending that the Secretary of Education explore ways to 

make information about inclusion of students with disabilities more 

accessible on Education’s Web site and work with states, particularly 

those with high exclusion rates, to explore strategies to reduce the 

number of students with disabilities who are excluded from the NAEP 

assessment. 

In comments on a draft of this report, Education officials noted that they 

were taking actions that would address the recommendations in this 

report. According to Education officials, the department will explore the 

use of “hot buttons” and links among the Web pages maintained by 

different Education offices and explore strategies for enhancing the 

inclusion of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment. 

Students with disabilities are a complex and diverse group. These students 

can have a wide range of physical and psychological disabilities, from 

severe cognitive delays or emotional disorders to specific learning 

disabilities that can affect their ability to learn. In addition, students with 

the same disability may demonstrate different levels of academic aptitude 

Background 

Page 4 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
and achievement. Individual students with disabilities may demonstrate 

grade-level or above achievement in some academic areas, while at the 

same time demonstrating lower academic achievement in other areas. 

Finally, students with disabilities may require different approaches to 

assess their performance. 

Two federal laws specifically require states to administer assessments for 

students with disabilities: NCLBA and the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA) last amended in 2004. NCLBA, which reauthorized 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was designed to improve 

academic achievement for all students. NCLBA requires that students with 

disabilities be included in statewide assessments that are used to 

determine whether schools and districts meet state goals. Further, NCLBA 

requires that all students, including students with disabilities, be measured 

against academic achievement standards established by the states.3

Specifically, NCLBA requires annual participation in assessments in third 

through eighth grades and one high school grade for reading and 

mathematics by the 2005-6 school year. To be deemed as making progress, 

each school must show that the school as a whole, as well as each of 

designated groups such as students with disabilities, met the state 

proficiency goals. Schools must also show that at least 95 percent of 

students in grades required to take the test have done so.4

 Further, schools 

must also demonstrate that they have met state targets on another 

measure of progress – graduation rates in high school or attendance or 

other measures in elementary or middle schools.

Under NCLBA, states are required to participate in NAEP for reading and 

math assessments in grades four and eight, although student participation 

continues to be voluntary. The purpose of this requirement was to use 

NAEP scores as confirmatory evidence about student achievement on 

state tests. According to Education, confirming state test results 

represented a new formal purpose for the NAEP. Also called “The Nation’s

Report Card,” the NAEP has been conducted regularly since 1969. Since 

then, this assessment has provided a national measure of student 

 3

 NCLBA’s focus on improving academic achievement for all students, including those with 

disabilities, has led to changes in what is taught to students with disabilities. For example,

special education teachers historically taught their students a primarily functional 

curriculum. Students with significant cognitive disabilities learned, for example, how to tie 

their shoes and how to shop in stores independently rather than strictly academic content. 

4

 In order to account for changes in participation numbers, Education allows schools to

average their assessment results and participation rates over a period of up to 3 years. 

Page 5 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
achievement. The NAEP can be used to track trends in student 

achievement over time or to compare student performance in a particular

state with the national average. In 1996, Education developed a new 

inclusion policy that provided for accommodations allowing most students 

with disabilities5

 to participate meaningfully in the NAEP. This policy was 

developed in response to increases in the numbers of students with 

disabilities, the attention paid to their needs, and a corresponding demand 

for information about their academic progress. Under the old policy, far 

fewer students with disabilities had been included in testing. 

IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs of 

children with disabilities, including children with significant cognitive 

disabilities. The law mandates that a free appropriate public education be 

made available for all eligible children with disabilities, requires an 

individualized education program6

 (IEP) for each student, the inclusion of 

students with disabilities in state and district assessments, and requires 

states to provide appropriate accommodations for students who can take

the regular assessment and to develop alternate assessments for students 

who cannot participate meaningfully in the regular assessment. The IEP 

team, which develops the IEP, also decides how students with disabilities 

participate in assessments, either without accommodations, with 

accommodations, or through alternate assessments. 

Accommodations alter the way a regular assessment is administered. They

provide students with disabilities the opportunity to demonstrate their 

academic achievement on a regular assessment without being impeded by 

their disabilities. For example, a student may need extended time to finish 

the assessment or someone to read the instructions aloud. Another 

example of an accommodation is taking the assessment in a small group 

setting. 

Alternate assessments are designed for the relatively few students with 

disabilities who are unable to participate in the regular statewide 

assessment, even with appropriate accommodations. For example, a 

 5

 And English language learners. 

6

 The term individualized education program refers to a written statement that is 

developed for each student with a disability that specifies, among other components, the

services that a student will receive, the extent to which the student will participate in the

regular education setting with nondisabled peers, and how the student will participate in 

statewide assessments. 

Page 6 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
student with the most significant cognitive and physical disabilities may be 

able to communicate only through moving her eyes and blinking. An 

alternate assessment for this student could include teacher observation 

reports and samples of student work. Similar to the regular assessments, 

NCLBA requires that alternate assessments be aligned with the state’s 

achievement standards. However, these assessments may be scored 

against grade-level or below grade-level achievement standards. See table 

1 for examples of assessment types and achievement standards. 

Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards 

Assessment type

Achievement 

standard Example 

Regular assessment without 

accommodations 

Grade-Level Paper and pencil assessment, i.e., 

the same assessment that students 

without disabilities take 

Regular assessment with 

accommodations 

Grade-Level Paper and pencil assessment with 

extended time for test-taking; small 

group or individual setting 

Alternate assessment Grade-Level or

below grade-level 

Portfolio showing samples of 

student work 

Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

An alternate assessment based upon grade-level achievement standards 

reflects the same standards as the regular assessment. For example, a 

student with an emotional disability, who might do her best work while 

being supervised, could solve an algebraic problem for a missing variable

that is similar to items on the regular assessment while her teacher 

observed her perform the task correctly. Because the items are similar in 

complexity, the alternate assessment—observing the student performing 

the academic task correctly—would measure the same grade-level

achievement standard as the regular assessment. For some students who 

could not be accommodated on the regular assessment, this method 

allows them to demonstrate their knowledge of grade-level academic 

content. 

An alternate assessment based upon below grade-level achievement 

standards reflects standards that are less complex than those on the 

regular assessment. In contrast to a student solving an algebraic problem

for a missing variable, a student with a cognitive disability could 

determine which coin is missing from a set of coins while his teacher 

records his efforts on a videotape. For some students, the alternate 

assessment allows them to demonstrate their knowledge of academic 

Page 7 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
content at their individual developmental levels. Education’s guidance

states that these below grade-level standards are appropriate only for 

students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The guidance 

placed no limit on the number of students that could be assessed against 

these standards. Under NCLBA, states and districts can count the 

proficient scores of students taking assessments with below grade-level 

standards as meeting state achievement goals provided the number of 

these students does not exceed 1 percent of all students.7

In addition, Education announced a new policy in April 2005 allowing 

states additional flexibility in assessing some students with disabilities—

those who are not significantly cognitively disabled, but face considerable

challenges in their academic development. For example, some students 

with disabilities may be 3 to 5 years behind their peers academically. The 

additional flexibility allows states to assess more students using less 

complex or below grade-level achievement standards. Further, qualified 

states were allowed to count the scores of these students as meeting state 

achievement goals, as long as the number of proficient scores for these 

students did not exceed 2 percent of all students. 

Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading 

assessments in the 2003-04 school year. Students with disabilities were 

usually included in the regular reading assessments and sometimes were 

included in alternate assessments. Two states that we visited,

Massachusetts and Oregon, had developed innovative approaches to 

including students with disabilities in statewide assessments. According to 

Education, 5 percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the 

NAEP, but state exclusion rates varied. This was in part because the 

assessment does not allow accommodations that are permitted on some 

statewide assessments. 

Most Students with 

Disabilities 

Participated in 

Statewide Reading 

Assessments in the 

2003-04 School Year 

 7

 Education has offered to raise the 1-percent limit on the number of students who can be

counted as meeting state achievement goals using below grade-level standards if a state 

demonstrates that it has a larger population of students with the most severe cognitive 

disabilities. For example, the limit has been raised for two states, Ohio and Virginia, to 

between 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent. For information on Education’s policy regarding the

inclusion of students in alternate assessments, see U.S. Department of Education, The 

Achiever, Jan. 15, 2004. http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/achiever/2004/011504.html. 

Page 8 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading 

assessments in the 2003-04 school year according to state reports to 

Education.8

 Forty-one states reported that they met NCLBA’s participation 

requirement by having at least 95 percent of students with disabilities 

participate in statewide reading assessments. Seven states and the District 

of Columbia reported participation rates below 95 percent for students 

with disabilities. Two states did not provide participation rate data for 

students with disabilities in a usable format. The participation requirement 

is part of what is considered to determine whether states, districts, and 

schools demonstrate adequate yearly progress. There are programmatic 

implications for not demonstrating progress goals. Two states, Indiana and 

Michigan, did not provide these data in a form that we could report. Figure 

1 presents the distribution of participation rates on statewide assessments. 

Most Students with 

Disabilities Participated in 

Reading Assessments, and 

Participation Rates Were 

Similar to Those of 

Nondisabled Students 

 8

 Data from three states that we visited showed that the participation of students with 

disabilities in statewide mathematics assessments was similar to their participation in 

reading assessments. 

Page 9 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Figure 1: Distribution of State and the District of Columbia Participation Rates on 

Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year 

Less than 

95 percent

Over 

95 percent

Number of states

4

8

46

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Students with disabilities

All students

Source: State data reported to Education in consolidated reports.

Note: Two states did not provide data on students with disabilities in a usable format, and one of 

these states did not provide data for all students in a usable format.

State participation rates for students with disabilities were generally 

similar to those for all students. Most states reported that an equal or 

slightly higher percentage of the total student population participated in

statewide assessments compared to students with disabilities. Differences

in the participation rates were usually minor. Connecticut, Georgia, and 

Oklahoma reported that the participation rate among students with 

disabilities in statewide reading assessments was higher than among all 

students. An official in one state said that the state had made efforts to 

boost the participation rate of students with disabilities, including issuing 

state guidance and holding regional workshops. The official also said that, 

because students with disabilities are a small subset of the state’s student

population, it is easier to boost participation among students with 

disabilities than among all students. Participation rate data by state can be 

found in appendix I. 

Page 10 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
In 49 states and the District of Columbia, most students with disabilities 

who were tested in the 2003-04 school year were included through regular 

reading assessments. In over two-thirds of these states, more than 90 

percent of students with disabilities were included in the regular reading 

assessment. In the four site-visit states, most students with disabilities 

were included in the regular reading assessment. 

In three of the four site-visit states, the majority of students with 

disabilities who were included through regular reading assessments

received accommodations in the 2003-04 year. These data ranged from 58 

percent in Florida to 89 percent in Massachusetts. Data from one state that

we visited, Florida, showed that additional time and other scheduling 

changes and changes of setting were the most frequent accommodations. 

Although the other 2 states did not provide data on the most frequently 

used accommodations, small group settings and extended time were the 

most frequent accommodations on the NAEP reading assessment which 

reflects the accommodations students receive in statewide assessment 

systems. 

Most Students with 

Disabilities Were Included 

in Regular Reading 

Assessments, and 

Relatively Few Were 

Included through Alternate 

Assessments 

Alternate reading assessments with grade-level standards were used by 

nine states. In six of these states, less than 10 percent of students with 

disabilities were included in these assessments. In the other three states, 

14 percent to 21 percent of students with disabilities were included in 

these assessments. Two of the four states that we visited, Massachusetts 

and Oregon, reported including students with disabilities in alternate 

reading assessments that measured grade-level standards. For information 

about the percentage of students included in this type of assessment, see 

figure 2. For state-by-state use of different types of assessments, see 

appendix I. 

Alternate reading assessments with below grade-level standards were used

by 49 states and the District of Columbia. In most of these states less than

10 percent of students with disabilities were included in these 

assessments. However, Texas included 60 percent of students with 

disabilities in alternate assessments that measured below grade-level 

Page 11 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
standards.9

 Officials in Hawaii, the only state that did not include any 

students in this type of assessment, reported that the state is developing

an alternate assessment that measures below grade-level standards. All 

four states that we visited reported including students with disabilities in 

these assessments. For information about the percentage of students 

included in this type of assessment, see figure 2. 

 9

 During a January 2005 monitoring visit, Education found that Texas included students in 

these assessments in a manner that was inconsistent with NCLBA regulations. Texas 

administered alternate assessments to students with disabilities who were performing

below grade level, whether or not the student was significantly cognitively disabled. 

Education found that, although Texas alternate assessments measure content that is below

grade level, the state has not developed standards for these assessments. Education also 

found that Texas allowed districts to exceed the 1 percent limit on students with 

disabilities who could be counted as having met state achievement goals with these 

assessments. 

Page 12 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Figure 2: Distribution of States and the District of Columbia by the Percentages of

Students with Disabilities Who Received Alternate Assessments Measuring GradeLevel and Below Grade-Level Standards in the 2003-04 School Year 

Number of states

20 percent

or over

Between 

10 - 19 percent

Source: Data calculated from state data reported to Education in consolidated reports.

Under 

10 percent

42

6 6

2 2 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Alternate assessment measuring below grade level standards

Alternate assessment measuring grade-level standards

Note: Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia offered alternate reading assessments that

measured below grade-level standards and nine states offered alternate assessments that measured 

grade-level standards. Only these states are included in this figure. Mississippi’s alternate 

assessment measuring alternate standards was included in the 10-19 category. 

We examined data in Florida and Massachusetts to determine the 

relationship between the disability and type of assessment used.

10 About 40 

percent of autistic students received alternate assessments in 

Massachusetts, the highest of any type of disability. Students with physical 

disabilities had the highest percentage of students receiving regular 

assessments without accommodations in Massachusetts. In Florida, over 

60 percent of students with autism received alternate assessments 

measuring below grade-level standards. Table 2 shows assessment data 

based on disability type for Massachusetts. 

 10 These data were not available for the other states we visited and were not available 

nationally. 

Page 13 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Table 2: Massachusetts’ Data on How Students with Different Types of Disabilities Were Included in Statewide Reading 

Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year 

English/Language arts (tested in grades 3, 4, 7, 10) 

Disability Type Enrollment Regular assessment

Regular 

assessment with

accommodations

Alternate assessment

at grade level or

below grade level

Intellectual 4,046 4% 66% 28%

Sensory/Hearing 327 10% 81% 8%

Communication 5,659 21% 77% 1%

Sensory/Vision 135 12% 78% 10%

Emotional 4,126 10% 85% 2%

Physical 310 33% 58% 8%

Health 2,145 10% 88% 1%

Specific learning 24,979 9% 90% 1%

Sensory/Deaf-Blindness 102 6% 68% 25%

Multiple disabilities 1,504 6% 61% 31%

Autism 1,272 6% 53% 40%

Neurological 1,513 11% 83% 5%

Developmental delay 1,648 13% 76% 10%

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education. 

Note: Massachusetts data did not show whether the alternate assessments measured grade-level or 

below grade-level standards. Very few students in the state received alternate assessments that

measured grade-level achievement standards. 

Few differences existed in how students were included in assessments 

based on their year in school according to data from the two states we 

visited that provided data. In both Massachusetts and Iowa, a similar 

percentage of students were given accommodations and alternate 

assessments across several different grade levels.

Massachusetts and Oregon 

Used Innovative 

Approaches to Assess the 

Performance of Students 

with Disabilities 

Two of the four states that we visited, Massachusetts and Oregon, used 

what experts described as innovative assessment approaches to measure 

the performance of students with disabilities. Massachusetts developed an 

alternate assessment system that can measure grade-level and below 

grade-level standards. State officials have developed a resource guide that

details the alignment between the curriculum and achievement standards. 

For each content area, the state has identified a progression of 

increasingly rigorous standards, with grade-level standards as the most 

rigorous, through which students can demonstrate knowledge of the same 

content. The performance of all students is measured with the same 

Page 14 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
content, but the progression of standards let students with widely varying 

abilities demonstrate their understanding of the content. 

Figure 3: Example of How a Below Grade-Level Standard Differs in Complexity from

a Grade-Level Standard

Example:

3a2 - b, 

for a = 3, b= 7

* addition + 

* subtraction –

* equal to =

Example:

Standard 

“as written” Less complex More complex

Progression of standards

Grade-Level standard:

Solving for an unknown 

quantity

Match pictures

& objects to 

create and 

compare sets

Understand

symbols and

meaning of: 

Solve simple 

one- and twodigit number 

sentences

Solve simple 

algebraic 

expressions for

given values 

Grade 7-8

learning

standard #2

for algebra:

1 + 1 + 1 = x

2 + x = 5

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education.

Oregon’s assessment allows all students, disabled and nondisabled, to use 

certain accommodations when taking the regular assessment. This is 

considered innovative because it recognizes that any student may need 

accommodations, regardless of whether they have recognized disabilities, 

and offers them certain accommodations, such as changes in test settings 

or timing. In this way, students with and without disabilities are not 

considered differently in their use of accommodations. 

Page 15 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
The NAEP began offering students with disabilities accommodations in 

1996, and some of the more commonly used accommodations included 

extended time to complete the assessment, testing in small-group sessions, 

and reading the directions aloud. Other accommodations included, for 

example, explanation of directions, scribes, large print, and the use of 

word processors or similar devices. 

Nationwide 5 Percent of 

Students with Disabilities 

Are Excluded from NAEP, 

but State Exclusion Rates 

Varied

NAEP has provided some accommodations, but nationwide about 5 

percent of students with disabilities have been excluded from the 

assessment. Education officials discussed several reasons students with 

disabilities were excluded from the assessment including: (1) the student 

had such a severe disability that the student could not meaningfully 

participate; (2) the principal and the IEP team decided that the student 

should not participate; and (3) the student’s IEP required that the student

be tested with accommodations that NAEP does not allow. At the state 

level, the percentage of students with disabilities who were excluded 

varied in 2002. For example, over 10 percent of students with disabilities 

were excluded from the 2002 NAEP reading assessment in three states, 

and only 2 percent to 3 percent of students with disabilities were excluded 

in a handful of other states. According to Education officials, the 

inclusion of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessments is affected 

by sampling issues as well as by the limitations of accommodations that 

are appropriate for the content covered by the NAEP. 

Research suggests that NAEP results for some states may be affected by 

exclusion rates. A 2003 report commissioned by Education found that 

different state exclusion rates affected NAEP’s rankings of states on 

student reading achievement. One purpose of the NAEP is to provide a 

basis for comparing states, each of which has its own standards and 

assessment system. These state rankings are often used by states and 

other organizations to compare states and determine how well states are 

educating their students. Additionally, state rankings are viewed by 

parents and state and local officials as important indicators of the quality 

of their states’ education systems. The report examined how state 

rankings would change under two different assumptions about how 

excluded students would have performed on the assessment if they had

been included. The report found that state rankings changed for over half 

of the states on both the fourth and eighth grade NAEP with both 

Page 16 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
assumptions. In one scenario, two states fell 6 places and one state fell 7 

places in the state rankings.11 

In addition, a 2003 report that was commissioned by the National 

Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan body appointed 

by Education, concluded that changes in state achievement on the NAEP 

between 1998 and 2002 could be partially explained by changes in 

exclusion rates. Changes in state results on the NAEP are frequently used 

by states and researchers to gauge which states have successfully raised 

student achievement. The study examined the 36 states that participated in 

both the 1998 and 2002 NAEP reading assessments. The report concluded 

that “a substantial portion of variation in states’ achievement score 

changes can be accounted for by changes in their rates of exclusion. 12 A 

report released by Education, the 2002 NAEP Report Card, found similar 

associations and said that there is a moderate tendency for exclusion rates 

to be associated with achievement gains but that exclusion rates do not 

entirely explain score gains.13

Some students with disabilities are excluded from the NAEP because it

does not allow some accommodations that are permitted by on statewide 

assessments. Education officials said that certain accommodations would 

interfere with the NAEP’s measurement of the knowledge being assessed. 

For instance, in the reading assessment, reading the passage and questions 

aloud to a student was not permitted because the assessment is intended 

to measure the student’s ability to read the written word as well as 

understand the meaning of the passage. Education officials also said that 

some accommodations could not be administered with the assessment for 

logistical reasons. For example, extending testing over several days was 

 11 For more information, see Statistical Methods to Account for Excluded Students in

NAEP at nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/statmeth.pdf. 

12 This report examined the exclusion of students with disabilities and students with limited 

English proficiency together and did not address the impact of the exclusion of students 

with disabilities separately. On the 2002 NAEP reading assessment, about 1.5 times as 

many students were identified as having disabilities as limited English proficiency. 

Students with disabilities were more than twice as likely to be excluded as students with 

limited English proficiency. For more information, see Edward Haertel, Including Students 

with Disabilities and English Language Learners in NAEP: Effects of Differential

Inclusion Rates on Accuracy and Interpretability of Findings (Washington, D.C.:

National Assessment Governing Board, December 2003). 

www.nagb.org/pubs/conferences/haertle.pdf. 

13 For more information, see National Assessment of Educational Progress, Washington,

D.C. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003521b.pdf. 

Page 17 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
not allowed because NAEP testing administrators are in each school only 

one day. Education has not developed alternate assessments for the 

NAEP. Table 3 lists accommodations that are allowed on some statewide 

assessments but not on the NAEP. 

Table 3: Accommodations Provided in Some Regular Statewide Assessments but

Not for NAEP 

Braille edition of assessmenta

Audio tape administration of assessment 

Calculator 

Abacus 

Arithmetic tables 

Graph paper 

Responses in native primary language 

Thesaurus 

Spelling and grammar checking software and devices 

Signing directions or answers

Extending sessions over multiple days 

Source: National Center for Education Statistics and interviews with Education officials. 

Note: See National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Inclusion Policy, 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp (June 3, 2005). 

a

The NAEP does not provide a Braille edition of the assessment but does allow states to provide a

Braille edition at their own expense. 

Another reason why states' exclusion rates for could vary on NAEP may 

relate to state policies and requirements regarding student participation of

students with disabilities. Although states are required to participate in the 

NAEP, student participation in this assessment is voluntary. Whether 

students with disabilities take the NAEP depends primarily on the 

recommendation of the student's IEP team, along with the availability of

appropriate accommodations. Team decision criteria could vary across 

states, leading to differences in exclusion rates. 

Education officials said they are implementing a new policy for how 

students with disabilities should be included in the NAEP assessment that 

will reduce variability in the inclusion of students with disabilities. 

Previously, the student’s IEP team and principal had to decide whether a 

student could participate in the NAEP assessment, leaving room for 

interpretation. The new policy will require schools to include students in 

the NAEP assessment if the students took the regular statewide 

Page 18 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
assessments (with or without accommodations) and the students’ IEPs do 

not specify that they be provided accommodations that NAEP does not 

allow. In addition, the new policy will require schools to include students 

with disabilities who took the state’s alternate assessment, if the school 

believes that the students can participate meaningfully in the NAEP 

assessment. The new policy will first be used with the 2006 NAEP 

assessments.

States faced challenges in designing alternate assessments (for grade- and 

below grade-level standards) and helping teachers to administer them for 

this small group of students with widely varying abilities. Officials from 

the four states we studied in depth, assessment companies, and national 

education organizations told us that designing and implementing alternate 

assessments that measured student achievement on state standards was 

difficult. These officials also told us that special education teachers 

needed training over a period of up to 3 years to administer alternate 

assessments properly. 

Designing alternate assessments posed difficulties, in part because of 

states’ inexperience with these types of assessments. Education officials 

and representatives from national education organizations told us that 

many states did not begin to design alternate assessments until required to

do so by IDEA 1997 for the 2000-01 school year. Education officials noted 

that states’ alternate assessments generally had not been aligned to state 

standards. Specifically, many states designed their alternate assessments 

to measure functional skills, such as using public transportation 

independently, rather than academic achievement. Consequently, 

designing alternate assessments that measured academic achievement was 

relatively new for many states.14

The widely varying abilities of students was identified by experts and 

officials as a key factor that made designing alternate assessments to 

measure academic achievement challenging. For example, some students 

with significant cognitive disabilities can communicate verbally or through 

using technology such as boards with pictures to which the student can

point, while others can communicate only through moving their eyes or 

States Faced 

Challenges in 

Designing and 

Preparing Teachers to 

Administer Alternate 

Assessments 

National Education 

Organizations and Some 

State Officials Reported 

Difficulties Designing 

Alternate Assessments 

Widely Varying Abilities of 

Students with Disabilities 

 14 Alternate assessments under NCLBA were first discussed as part of Education's 

standards and assessment regulations. These final regulations were issued on July 5, 2002. 

Alternate assessments were also discussed in regulations issued on December 9, 2003. 

Page 19 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
blinking. Further, some students may best show their achievement 

through working with their teacher, while others have the ability to create

work samples independently. Still other students may be able to take 

portions of the regular assessment in one subject, but require a different 

approach for another subject. National assessment and education experts 

told us that measuring these students’ achievement often required an 

individualized approach.

Efforts to design alternate assessments that measured academic 

achievement as required by NCLBA took about 3 years, according to 

federal education officials and assessment experts. The process for 

designing alternate assessments involved a number of steps and decisions, 

such as choosing a format and revising or modifying assessments. In the 

four states we studied, two offered the portfolio format as their alternate 

assessment, and the other two offered a number of options, including the 

portfolio. See table 4 for a description of these assessments. 

Design Process Took Time 

Table 4. Selected Alternate Assessments Used in Study States and Descriptions

Alternate assessments Achievement standard Description

Portfolio Grade-Level or below 

grade-level achievement 

A collection of student work gathered to demonstrate student 

performance on specific skills and knowledge, generally linked to state 

content standards. Portfolio contents are individualized and may 

include, among other evidence, samples of student work, test results, 

and video records of student performance. 

Performance assessment Grade-Level or below 

grade-level achievement 

A direct measure of student skills or knowledge, usually in a one-on-one

assessment. These can be highly structured, requiring a teacher or 

assessment administrator to give students specific items or tasks, 

similar to regular assessments or based on student needs.

Out of level assessment Below grade-level 

achievement 

A regular assessment for a lower grade level. 

Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

Creating alignment between these assessments and the curriculum and 

achievement standards, as required by NCLBA, was challenging and labor 

intensive, according to officials in our study states, representatives from 

national education organizations, and assessment experts. Specifically, the 

curriculum should include subject matter outlined in the achievement 

standards, and the alternate assessment should properly determine 

whether students have mastered the standards. For example, if the 

standard were to understand written English, the curriculum might 

include reading and understanding grade-level text. An alternate 

assessment with below grade-level standards might include a student 

reading one- or two-word items and matching them to familiar people, 

Page 20 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
places, or things. Because states generally had not designed alternate 

assessments nor assessed students with disabilities on academic 

achievement before 2000, aligning standards with alternate assessments 

was relatively new. Further, alignment was difficult because of the need to 

provide a way for students with widely varying abilities to display their 

achievement. 

Further, officials explained that it can be difficult to reconcile the need to 

administer individualized assessments under IDEA and the need to 

provide standardized assessments under NCLBA for these students. These 

concerns were also reflected in a recent report on NCLBA from a national 

education organization.15 Specifically, standardized alternate assessments 

may not be appropriate for all students who need an alternate assessment 

because they may not be flexible enough to accommodate all students’ 

abilities. However, experts and officials noted that individualized 

assessments, such as portfolios, can also present challenges. For example, 

because individualized assessment approaches often rely heavily on the 

participation of the person administering the assessment, that person can

affect how students demonstrate their performance. Teachers may select 

work samples that demonstrate exceptional performance of their student, 

even though the student does not typically perform that well. 

Individualized and 

Standardized Assessments and 

Reliability of Assessments 

Officials in one state told us that a team of education officials determined 

that their alternate assessment needed to be more reliable in both 

implementation and scoring, a sentiment shared by officials and teachers 

in other states as well. Scoring in the states we studied was done by the 

student’s teacher, teachers from other districts, or officials from the local

education agency. Officials in the state in which teachers score their own 

students said that no independent reviews determined whether the scores 

were accurate or unbiased, and teachers from two other states told us that 

scores for similar portfolios sometimes varied. 

A number of states used advisory committees to help them design their 

alternate assessments, according to assessment experts and state officials. 

These committees can be composed of experts in the field of assessment, 

and they provide guidance to state officials. For example, officials in one 

state told us that a series of three advisory committees helped them make 

Start-Up Issues and Ongoing 

Costs 

 15 Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year Three of the No 

Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2005). 

http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/nclby3/. 

Page 21 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
decisions about their alternate assessment, including its format. Officials 

in another state told us that they met with a working group for 2 years in 

preparation for assessing students with disabilities on alternate 

assessments. Information reported by officials in all states to Education 

for the 2003-4 school year indicated that many states are currently revising 

or modifying their alternate assessments. 

Officials in two of the four states also reported that they were not using 

alternate assessments based on grade-level standards because they were 

unaware of models that appropriately measured achievement. National 

assessment and education experts said that education officials from many 

states had expressed similar views. In two of the four states we studied 

not using these assessments, some local officials told us that they would

like to use this assessment option. 

Finally, assessment experts and state officials told us that designing and 

implementing these assessments was costly for this small group of 

students. They also said that there were start-up costs in addition to the 

annual cost for implementation. For example, officials in one state we 

studied estimated that they spent approximately $591,000 in the first year 

of implementation. These costs included designing the assessment, 

training teachers to administer the assessments and training scorers to 

score the assessments. These officials told us that costs have decreased to 

approximately $164,000 in the third year of implementation. Assessment 

experts estimated that the annual cost for alternate assessments per 

student ranged from $75 to $400, compared with $5 to $20 for regular 

assessments. A prior GAO report16 similarly associated lower costs with 

assessments scored by machine—a paper and pencil test with answers 

marked on a bubble sheet—and greater costs for assessments scored by 

people, as alternate assessments often are. 

Extensive Training and 

Implementation Posed 

Challenge for Teachers 

Teachers responsible for administering alternate assessments needed 

training on the use, administration, and scoring of these assessments—

which could take 2 years to 3 years plus some ongoing training—according

to federal and state officials, as well as education and assessment experts. 

Assessing students with disabilities was a relatively new role for veteran 

teachers and different from overseeing a classroom of students for regular 

 16 GAO, Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information Sharing 

May Help States Realize Efficiencies, GAO-03-389 (Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2003). 

Page 22 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
assessments during class time. In addition, new teachers needed 

additional training because they had limited course work on assessment 

issues in their teacher preparation programs. Assessment experts and 

officials in the states we studied told us that these programs generally

provided one course in assessment, but that the course did not provide 

enough training in how to administer alternate assessments, interpret 

results, or use results to improve their instruction. Teachers needed to

become familiar with these assessments, including portfolio assessments, 

which may involve many hours of creating, compiling, and documenting 

samples of student work both during and outside of class.17 Further, some 

ongoing refresher training was needed, particularly when alternate 

assessments were modified from year to year and when teachers did not 

administer alternate assessments every year. 

Special education teachers also needed to learn the regular academic 

curriculum and state standards upon which alternate assessments are 

based. Historically, special education teachers had little exposure to this 

curriculum and its associated standards because they have taught 

functional skills, such as shopping independently in stores. Officials in one 

state told us that their teachers faced a learning curve to become familiar 

with the academic curriculum and how to create appropriate ways for 

their students to access that curriculum. For example, the grade-level 

curriculum might teach students to determine the meaning of unknown 

words from their context for the fourth grade reading assessment. A 

special education teacher would need to learn the grade-level curriculum 

and then match a student’s skills with an appropriate task to demonstrate 

mastery for the student’s individual level. For example, a highly 

functioning special education student might demonstrate mastery by using 

a dictionary to determine the meaning of unknown words. A student with 

significant cognitive disabilities might demonstrate mastery by associating 

a picture with a familiar object, action, or event.

Finally, despite the challenges of implementing alternate assessments, 

teachers and state officials shared success stories for students with 

 17 For example, portfolios in one state required three work samples, including a sheet on

which the teacher tracked student performance during the school year, for each of five 

content areas for each subject assessed. For a student taking an alternate assessment in 

reading and math, two separate portfolios with fifteen work samples each would need to be 

created. Veteran teachers in one state emphasized the need to collect work samples as part 

of their everyday teaching activities. Although it was challenging to incorporate the

practice into their classrooms, this made assembling the portfolios much easier and faster. 

Page 23 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
disabilities. For example, officials who developed a guide matching gradelevel and below grade-level standards told us that this investment was 

worthwhile because it helped teachers become better teachers by 

identifying a progression of standards for students with disabilities to 

access grade-level academic curriculum. In addition, officials in some 

states noted that it was valuable that special education teachers were 

encouraged to teach academic curriculum to students with significant 

cognitive disabilities under NCLBA. Teachers told us many stories of 

student achievement, which exceeded their expectations. For example, 

one teacher described teaching the difference between sweet and sour to a 

student with severe and multiple disabilities. The student, after tasting 

both, consistently signaled “sweet” by looking toward the sweet item 

repeatedly when asked which she preferred. Experts, officials and 

teachers were generally positive about raising academic expectations for 

students with disabilities and attributed this directly to NCLBA. 

Education’s efforts to help states implement assessment requirements for 

students with disabilities included a variety of activities. However, state 

officials said that additional information, such as examples of alternate 

assessments, would be helpful. We presented states’ concerns to 

Education in March 2005. Education announced in May 2005 that it was 

developing guidance and planned to provide comprehensive technical 

assistance to states on this topic as early as the Fall of 2005. We also found 

that it was difficult to locate assessment information on Education’s Web 

site because there was no Web link that associated the alternate 

assessment information on the site’s NCLBA section with related 

information on the research, development, and use of these assessments 

that is available on other sections of the site. 

Education 

Disseminated 

Information to States 

on Assessing Students 

with Disabilities, but 

Some State Officials 

Reported the Need for 

Alternate Assessment 

Examples 

Page 24 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Education provided a broad range of assistance to help states implement 

assessment requirements for students with disabilities, such as 

disseminating guidance that included technical information on alternate 

assessments, reviewing state assessment plans, awarding grants to help 

states improve their assessment systems, and conducting on-site visits.18

Further, Education has conducted outreach efforts to states to 

communicate the requirements for the inclusion of students with 

disabilities under NCLBA and to improve state data systems to ensure they 

capture the true achievement and participation of students in these 

assessments. For example, the department’s Office of Special Education 

Program’ Regional Resource Centers and other technical assistance 

projects have collaborated with states through teleconferences, 

preconference training sessions, and by providing technical assistance 

materials and resources. Education also made extensive use of its NCLBA 

Web site, newsletters, and attendance at national education-related 

conferences to disseminate guidance to states on NCLBA’s assessment 

requirements for all students, including students with disabilities. 

Education Provided Many 

Types of Assistance, but 

Officials Said Examples of 

Alternate Assessment 

Approaches Would Be 

Helpful 

The department also funded two national centers that had, as part of their 

focus, the assessment of students with disabilities—the National Center on 

Educational Outcomes and the National Alternate Assessment Center. The 

National Center on Educational Outcomes examined the participation of 

students in national and statewide assessments, including the use of 

accommodations and alternate assessments and conducted research in the 

area of assessment and accountability. In addition, the National Alternate 

Assessment Center established principles of technical soundness for 

alternate assessments and techniques for aligning alternate assessments 

with grade-level content standards. 

Despite Education’s efforts to assist states in this area, experts and some 

state officials identified challenges in designing and implementing 

alternate assessments. As noted above, many states had limited 

experience with these assessments. Representatives from a national 

education organization and officials in two of the four study states, 

specifically the two states not using these assessments, said that they did 

not know how alternate assessments that measured grade-level standards 

would look, and that examples would be helpful. Further, only nine states

 18 According to Education officials, this assistance was provided primarily through the

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Special Education

Programs, with support from the Institute of Education Sciences and the Office for Civil 

Rights. 

Page 25 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
reported using these assessments in the 2003-04 school year. According to

Education officials, the department has made information on alternate 

assessments available during preconference workshops at national 

education-related conferences and through the National Center on 

Educational Outcomes’ Web site. Education officials also reported that the 

department participated with state officials in a group including state 

officials and national education experts that discussed and researched 

alternate assessments. However, information provided to state officials 

often included brief descriptions of alternate assessments but not 

illustrative examples to help states. In March 2005, we told Education 

about states’ alternate assessment concerns. In May 2005, Education 

announced additional efforts to help states use alternate assessments. 

Under these efforts, which are being conducted by a department task force 

and funded by $5 million from the department’s Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services, Education plans to provide 

comprehensive technical assistance to states that lack alternate 

assessment plans as early as the fall of 2005. According to Education 

officials, plans for providing assistance to states in this area were still 

being developed. As a result, we were unable to review Education’s plans, 

and the extent to which the department’s efforts will address states’ 

concerns about alternate assessments is unknown. 

Information on 

Assessment of Students 

with Disabilities Not Easily 

Located on Education’s 

Web Site 

According to Education officials, information concerning the inclusion of

students with disabilities in statewide assessments has been primarily 

disseminated through the department’s Web site. Our review of 

Education’s Web site, however, disclosed that certain information on the 

development and use of alternate assessment for students with disabilities 

was difficult to locate. For example, the NCLBA section of Education’s 

Web site provided extensive information about the regulatory 

requirements for alternate assessments. However, information on the 

research, development, and use of these assessments was generally 

accessed through a series of non-assessment-related Internet links on the 

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) section of Education’s Web 

site. Moreover, there was no Web link that associated the alternate 

assessment information on the NCLBA section of the Web site with related 

information on the OSEP section of the Web site. In addition, accessing 

alternate assessment information on the OSEP Web site was complicated 

because it required the user to have a working knowledge of OSEP’s 

programs, knowledge that some statewide assessment officials may not 

have. 

Page 26 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
NCLBA seeks to make fundamental changes in public education by 

challenging federal, state, and local education officials to improve student 

performance. In particular, NCLBA focused attention on the academic 

performance of all students, requiring that the performance of groups, 

such as students with disabilities, be considered in determining whether 

schools meet state goals. IDEA has also emphasized the importance of 

assessing the academic achievement of students with disabilities. 

Education has provided much guidance to states on how to include 

students with disabilities in statewide assessment systems. Despite their 

efforts, some state and local officials as well as national organization 

representatives reported they lacked alternate assessment examples or 

models, particularly at grade-level standards, and were uncertain about 

how to design and implement them. This uncertainty may have

contributed to some states not using alternate assessments with gradelevel standards. As a result, some students with disabilities may not have 

been provided the most appropriate type of assessment to measure their 

achievement. In May 2005, Education announced additional efforts to help 

states use alternate assessments. According to Education officials, plans 

for providing assistance to states in this area were still being developed. 

As a result, we were unable to review Education’s plans, and the extent to

which the department’s effort will address states’ concerns about alternate 

assessments is unknown. 

Conclusions 

Given that Education has relied heavily on its Web site to provide 

information on assessing children with disabilities and our finding that this

information was not very accessible, the effectiveness of this 

communication may be limited. As a result, state and local officials may 

not have all the necessary information available to guide decisions about 

appropriately including students with disabilities in statewide 

assessments.

Finally, NCLBA requires that students, including those with disabilities, 

periodically participate in the NAEP to gain a national picture of student 

achievement. Although most students with disabilities participated in the 

NAEP, the percent of students who were excluded from the assessment 

varied across the states. Consequently, the results of this assessment may 

not fully reflect student achievement, thus comparisons of student 

achievement across states may have limitations. 

Page 27 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
We recommend that the Secretary of Education take the following two 

actions to increase the participation of students with disabilities in 

assessments. 

We recommend that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the 

information on the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide 

assessments more accessible to users of its Web site. Specifically, 

information on the NCLBA section of Education’s Web site concerning 

alternate assessment requirements for students with disabilities should be 

linked to information on the research, development, and use of these 

assessments that is available on other sections of Education’s Web site. 

Finally, we recommend that the Secretary of Education work with states, 

particularly those with high exclusion rates, to explore strategies to 

reduce the number of students with disabilities who are excluded from the 

NAEP assessment. 

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. 

In their letter, Education officials noted that they were taking actions that 

would address the recommendations in this report. For example, in 

response to the first recommendation, the department will explore the use 

of “hot buttons” and links among the Web pages maintained by different 

Education offices to further increase access to information regarding the

assessment of students with disabilities. Similarly, in response to the 

second recommendation, Education officials acknowledged that there is 

still much work to be done in increasing the participation and inclusion 

rates of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment. As part of this 

effort, the department is exploring strategies for enhancing the inclusion 

of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment. 

We have also included some additional information the department 

provided to us on outreach and technical assistance efforts on the 

assessment of students with disabilities and how students with disabilities 

participated in the NAEP. Education officials also provided technical 

comments that we incorporated into the report where appropriate. 

Education’s written comments are reproduced in appendix II.

Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education, relevant

congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be 

made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 28 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

on (202)512-7215 or at shaulm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Other contacts and major contributors are listed in 

appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Marnie S. Shaul 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 

Page 29 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix I: Percent of Students with 

Disabilities Participating in State 

Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the

2003-04 School Year, by State 

Percent of total 

student 

population

participating in

reading exams 

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

participating in

reading exams

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

tested who 

participated in

regular reading

assessmentsa

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

tested who 

participated in

alternate reading

assessments 

measuring 

grade-level 

standardsa

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

tested who 

participated in

alternate reading

assessments 

measuring below 

grade-level 

standardsa

Percent of data 

on participation 

by assessment 

type that was 

unreported or

missinga

Alabama 94.6 86 76 0 6 18

Alaska 98 97 96 0 4 0

Arizona 100 96 91 0 9 0

Arkansas 97 90 93 0 7 0

California 98 98 92 0 8 0

Colorado 100 100 91 0 7 2

Connecticut 96 98 82 0 18 0

Delaware 99 98 93 0 7 0

District of 

Columbia 93 86 94 0 6 0

Florida 98b96 b 88 0 12 0

Georgia 92.9 93 94 0 6 0

Hawaii 98 96 97 3 0 0

Idaho 99 99 94 0 4 2

Illinois 99 98 94 0 6 0

Indiana 100 c 95 0 5 0

Iowa 99 98 96 0 4 0

Kansas 99 98 73 21 6 0

Kentucky 99 99 93 0 7 0

Louisiana 100 99a83 0 17 0

Maine 100 99 93 0 7 0

Maryland 100 100 91 0 9 0

Massachusetts 100 99 94 < 1 6 0

Michigan c c65 0 35 0

Minnesota 97 95 88 0 12 0

Mississippi 99 96 89 0 9-12d0

Missouri 99 96 99 0 1 0

Montana 100 99 93 0 7 0

Nebraska 99 96 96 0 4 0

Appendix I: Percent of Students with 

Disabilities Participating in State 

Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 

2003-04 School Year, by State 

Page 30 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix I: Percent of Students with 

Disabilities Participating in State 

Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the

2003-04 School Year, by State 

Percent of total 

student 

population

participating in

reading exams 

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

participating in

reading exams

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

tested who 

participated in

regular reading

assessmentsa

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

tested who 

participated in

alternate reading

assessments 

measuring 

grade-level 

standardsa

Percent of

students with

disabilities 

tested who 

participated in

alternate reading

assessments 

measuring below 

grade-level 

standardsa

Percent of data 

on participation 

by assessment 

type that was 

unreported or

missinga

Nevada 98a97 97 0 3 0

New Hampshire 99 99 95 0 5 0

New Jersey 99 97 95 0 5 0

New Mexico 97a94a95 0 5 0

New York 98a93a89 1 4 6

North Carolina 100 99 87 9 3 0

North Dakota 100 98 92 0 8 0

Ohio 98 96 95 0 5 0

Oklahoma 99 100 84 0 16 0

Oregon 100 99 76 14 9 0

Pennsylvania 98 94 94 0 6 0

Rhode Island 99 98 97 0 3 0

South Carolina 99 98 88 0 3 9

South Dakota 99 99 93 0 7 0

Tennessee 99 99 92 0 8 0

Texas 94.6 77 39 0 60 1

Utah 97 95 93 < 1 7 0

Vermont 100 99 74 20 6 0

Virginia 99 97 92 0 8 0

Washington 100 100 94 0 6 0

West Virginia 99 98 96 0 4 0

Wisconsin 99 98 91 < 1 9 0

Wyominge100 99 98 0 6 0

Source: GAO analysis; State consolidated performance reports to Education. 

Note: Figures rounded to the nearest whole number, except in cases where rounding would have 

made numbers appear inconsistent with other sections of the report.

a

Calculated by GAO from state data. 

b

Florida does not calculate participation rate separately for reading and for mathematics. The 

information included in this table is the participation rate for reading and mathematics combined.

c

Did not provide usable data 

d

Mississippi reported a range for this figure. 

Page 31 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix I: Percent of Students with 

Disabilities Participating in State 

Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the

2003-04 School Year, by State 

e

Sum of the number of students with disabilities participating in the three different types of reading 

assessments was greater than figure the state provided for the total number of students participating 

in reading assessments. 

Page 32 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education 

of Education 

Page 33 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 34 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 35 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Education 

Page 36 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 37 GAO-05-618

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Marnie Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov 

Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Arthur T. Merriam Jr. (Analyst-inCharge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Katharine Leavitt and 

Scott Spicer made significant contributions to this report, in all aspects of 

the work. In addition, Sheranda Campbell contributed to the initial design 

of the assignment, Carolyn Boyce provided technical support, Daniel 

Schwimer provided legal support, and Scott Heacock assisted in the 

message and report development. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Special Education Assessments
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research, 

More Charter School-Level Data Are Needed. GAO-05-5. Washington, D.C.: 

January 12, 2005. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process 

for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734. 

Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on 

Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909. 

Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004. 

Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination 

Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher 

Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004. 

No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States 

Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631. 

Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2003. 

Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information 

Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington,

D.C.: May 8, 2003. 

(130387) Page 38 GAO-05-618 Special Education Assessments
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER