Skip Navigation

IES  NCESNational Center for Education Statistics

              -  Surveys & Programs                  -  Annual Reports                    -  Condition of Education  Digest of Education Statistics  Projections of Education Statistics  Topical Studies 
                -  National Assessments                    -  National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)  Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 
                -  International Assessments                    -  International Activities Program (IAP) 
                -  Early Childhood                    -  Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS)  National Household Education Survey (NHES) 
                -  Elementary/ Secondary                    -  Common Core of Data (CCD)  Secondary Longitudinal Studies Program  Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE)  National Teacher and Principal Survey (NTPS)  more... 
                -  Library                    -  Library Statistics Program 
                -  Postsecondary                    -  Baccalaureate and Beyond (B&B)  Career/Technical Education Statistics (CTES)  Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS)  National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)  more... 
                -  Data Systems, Use, & Privacy                    -  Common Education Data Standards (CEDS)  National Forum on Education Statistics  Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant Program - (SLDS)  more... 
                -  Resources                    -  Distance Learning Dataset Training  National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC)  Statistical Standards Program  more... 
              -  Data & Tools                  -  Downloads Microdata/Raw Data                    -  Delta Cost Project  IPEDS Data Center  How to apply for Restricted Use License  Online Codebook 
                -  Online Analysis                    -  ACS-ED Tables  Data Lab  Elementary Secondary Information System  International Data Explorer  IPEDS Data Center  NAEP Data Explorer 
                -  School and College Search                    -  ACS Dashboard  College Navigator  Private Schools  Public School Districts  Public Schools  Search for Schools and Colleges 
                -  Comparison Tools                    -  NAEP State Profiles (nationsreportcard.gov)  Public School District Finance Peer Search  Education Finance Statistics Center  IPEDS Data Center 
                -  Questionnaire Tools                    -  NAEP Question Tool  NAAL Questions Tool 
                -  Geographic Tools                    -  ACS-ED Dashboard  ACS-ED Maps  Locale Lookup  MapEd  SAFEMap  School and District Navigator 
                -  Other Tools                    -  Bibliography  ED Data Inventory 
              -  Fast Facts                  -  Assessments  Early Childhood  Elementary and Secondary  Postsecondary and Beyond  Resources  Special Topics 
              -  News & Events                  -  NCES Blog  What's New at NCES  Conferences/Training  NewsFlash  Funding Opportunities  Press Releases  StatChat 
              -  Publications & Products                  -  Search Publications and Products  Annual Reports  Restricted-use Data Licenses    Recent Publications  By Subject Index A-Z  By Survey & Program Areas  Data Products Last 6 Months 
              -  About Us                  -  About NCES  Commissioner  Contact NCES  Staff  Help 

ContactToolsED.govNewsflash

NCES BlogXFacebook

Increasing the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and Limited EnglishProficient Students in NAEP

Vol. 2, No. 1, July 1996(NCES 96-894)  Ordering Information
The purpose of this edition of *Focus on NAEP*is to describe theactivities underway in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)toward increasing the numbers of **students with disabilities (SD)** or **limitedEnglish proficient (LEP)**students who are included in the assessment. In this article, informationis provided on the changes made to the inclusion criteria, the types ofaccommodations now being offered, new procedures implemented in 1996, andongoing research studies on inclusion issues.

 NAEP is in the process of examining and implementing new procedures tomaximize the representativeness of students included in the assessment. Thefocus is on efforts to enhance overall participation by including more SD andLEP students. Inclusion is receiving increased attention at the federal, state,and local levels, with much activity occurring in recent years. Changes havebeen made in the criteria for making selection decisions to include morestudents in the assessment and to offer various accommodations to students withspecial needs. Currently, NAEP is looking carefully into a variety of issueshaving to do with inclusion of both the SD and LEP student populations.

 NAEP's main purpose is to provide key indicators of what the nation'sstudents know and can do. This concept means that the NAEP results shouldrepresent *all* students in the nation. This is especially importantbecause NAEP uses a sampling approach in which all students may be included,although, in actuality, some students with disabilities and limited Englishproficiency students do not participate in the assessment. Recent educationaltrends, reflected in the authorizations of Goals 2000: Educate America Act andImproving America's Schools Act (IASA), and the proposed reauthorization of theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), have called for assessments that aremeaningful, challenging, and appropriate for *all* students. This call hasled NAEP to look closely at the procedures for assessing larger numbers of SDand LEP students. NAEP is committed to increasing participation of as many ofthese students as possible in the assessment. Among the many benefits of thisapproach are improved measurement of overall student achievement, enhancement ofthe representativeness and generalizability of NAEP results, and greaterfairness and equity. Among the challenges for NAEP are upholding its high degreeof validity, maintaining its reliability, and preserving the ability to analyzeand report trends in the face of changes made to procedures and the sampledpopulation of respondents.
NAEP's Approach Prior to 1995
 In the past, students with disabilities and limited English proficiencywere often excluded from NAEP for several reasons--state and local policies hadbeen designed to identify SD and LEP students and exclude them from testingbased on certain criteria; school staff may have believed these students wereunable to participate meaningfully; or, no test accommodations or adaptationswere available that met the specific needs or requirements of the IndividualizedEducation Plans (IEPs) required by law for students with certain disabilities.In order to standardize NAEP procedures, NAEP had previously developed policyguidelines for including students with disabilities or limited Englishproficiency, but some were excluded, particularly those with profounddisabilities or students who would have required accommodations to the testingprocedures.

 In previous years, about half or more of the students identified as IEP orLEP were excluded from the NAEP assessments (see table 1). The percentages ofstudents excluded, because in the judgment of school staff they could notparticipate meaningfully, have been fairly steady over time, with about fivepercent excluded due to IEPs and one percent excluded due to LEP. While thepercentage of students excluded has remained relatively small in relation to thetotal population, these students make up a relatively large portion of thespecial education and LEP populations. Decisions to exclude students from theassessment were based on specific criteria used with NAEP (discussed further inthe next section). Exclusion was further impacted by a lack of availableaccommodations and adaptations (such as extended testing time or assessmentinstruments in other languages).

**Table 1.--NAEP Inclusion Rates for IEP and LEP Students, by Grade,1992-1994**
Percent Students Identified IEPPercent IEP Students AssessedPercent Students Identified LEPPercent LEP Students Assessed Grade 4199293342519941250650 Grade 8199294433319941338450 Grade 12199252025019941136366
 An evaluation of NAEP conducted by the National Academy of Education1in 1994 found that many of the SD and LEP students who had been excluded fromNAEP were, in fact, capable of participating in the assessment. This wasparticularly true if certain types of adaptations and accommodations could beoffered for the assessment. It also recommended that NAEP develop bettercriteria to promote inclusion, rather than exclusion, of students. During thissame time period, various offices in the Education Department as well as other groups also were involved in examining the issuesrelated to including more students in assessments. These groups providedadditional valuable input to NAEP on ways to improve the inclusion andaccommodations process.2 In response to these concerns, NAEPexplored ways to increase the inclusion rates even further. To meet theseobjectives, plans were made to try out new approaches toward inclusiveness inpreparation for the 1996 assessment.
Changes in Procedures in Preparation for the 1996 NAEP
 The exclusion or inclusion criteria used in NAEP have changed somewhat overtime. Prior to 1995, the procedures used by NAEP to determine who canparticipate in the assessment were based on criteria for excluding students.Beginning with the 1995 NAEP field test, the criteria were revised to be moreinclusionary. Other changes were made to make a better link between subjectareas of instruction and the assessment and in response to concerns about thelanguage used in the old criteria. The old and new criteria are presented intable 2.

**Table 2.--Old and New Exclusion or Inclusion Rules for NAEP**
**Old (1990-1994)****New (1995-1996)****EXCLUDE IF:****INCLUDE IF**:**Students with Disabilities**Student is mainstreamed less than 50 percent of the time in academic subjectsand is judged incapable of participating meaningfully in the assessment, OR IEP team or equivalent group determine that the student is incapable ofparticipating meaningfully in the assessment.Student has an IEP, unless the IEP team or equivalent group determine that thestudent cannot participate, or if the student's cognitive functioning is soseverely impaired that he or she cannot participate, even with accommodations.**Students with Limited English Proficiency**Student is native speaker of a language other than English, AND Enrolled in an English-speaking school (not including bilingual educationprogram) for less than two years, AND Judged to be incapable of taking part in the assessment.Student has received academic instruction primarily in English for at leastthree years, OR Student has received academic instruction in English for less than threeyears, if school staff determine that the student is capable of participating inthe assessment in English, OR Student, whose native language is Spanish, has received academicinstruction in English for less than three years, if school staff determine thatthe student is capable of participating in the assessment in Spanish (ifavailable).
 In all years, schools were instructed that SD and LEP students should beassessed if, in the judgment of school staff, they were capable of taking theassessment, and that, in cases of doubt, the school should err on the side ofinclusion.

 In preparation for the 1996 assessment, NAEP field tested in 1995 the newinclusionary criteria for participation and the use of various accommodationsand adaptations for the mathematics assessment. The field test also includedscience, but no accommodations or adaptations were tested for this subject. Formathematics, accommodations were made available for students with disabilitiesif they were part of the student's normal testing procedure, as specified in thestudent's IEP.

 The accommodations for students with disabilities included
- provision of large-print booklets and large-face calculators;
- provision of Braille booklets and talking calculators;
- accommodations in administration procedures, (e.g., unlimited testing time,individual or small-group administrations, allowing a facilitator to readdirections, allowing students to give answers orally, allowing students to giveanswers using a special mechanical apparatus). 

Accommodation and adaptation strategies for limited English proficientstudents (provided for mathematics only) included the availability of
- Spanish-English bilingual assessment booklets, with items in differentlanguages presented on facing pages;
- Spanish-only assessment booklets. 

In general, the 1995 field test results appear to be encouraging. Some SDand LEP students who would not have participated under previous assessmentconditions were able to participate in the field test. The results of the fieldtest showed that the new procedures could be implemented successfully in the1996 national assessment. However, a preliminary analysis of the test items andstudent performance indicated that, for both the SD and LEP samples of studentsincluded and assessed under nonstandard conditions (i.e., with accommodations oradaptations) in the field test, the results may not be comparable to those fromother students. Further study of the statistical and measurement issues wasindicated for 1996.
Design, Inclusion Criteria, and Accommodations for the 1996 NAEP
 In preparing for the 1996 assessment, NAEP staff were concerned aboutseveral conflicting issues related to possible changes that were being planned,including: (1) the measurement of trends, (2) the comparability of results fromstudents who were accommodated with those who were not, and (3) the impact ofchanges in the inclusion criteria and provision of accommodations.

 To address these issues, a special sample design was developed to examinecarefully the effects of these changes. The 1996 NAEP was designed to allowmeasurement of trends from past years, necessitating following the sameprocedures as in the past, while at the same time incorporating new criteria forinclusion of students with disabilities and LEP students and offeringaccommodations and adaptations for students needing them. The design allowedresearch into the impact of changes in the inclusion criteria and the use ofaccommodations and adaptations. To address these needs, the 1996 national-levelNAEP in mathematics actually consisted of three separate samples of about 3,500students each at grades 4, 8, and 12, as shown in table 3:

**Table 3.--Sample Design for 1996 NAEP Mathematics Assessment**
**Sample and Purpose****Inclusion Criteria****Accommodations**1 - Trends to past yearsOld (1990-1994)No2 - Evaluate new criteriaNew (1995-1996)No3 - Evaluate new criteria and accommodationsNew (1995-1996)Yes
 In Sample 1, to measure trends to past years, SD and LEP students wereincluded using the same criteria as in 1990-1994 and no accommodations were offered.In Sample 2, to evaluate the effect of using new inclusion criteria only, SD andLEP students were included using the new criteria, but no accommodations wereoffered. In Sample 3, to evaluate the impact of using new criteria and offeringaccommodations, SD and LEP students were included using the new criteria andaccommodations were provided.

 By comparing average results and inclusion rates among the threesubsamples, the impact of the new inclusion criteria and of providingaccommodations will be revealed. At the same time, results fromstudents in the first sample and from similar students in the other two samplescan be compared to results from previous years because testing procedureswill not have changed for these students. In the 1996 science assessment, onlythe second and third subsamples were used because there were no previousassessments in science to which 1996 results will need to be compared.

 Initial results pertaining to students with disabilities or limited Englishproficiency are planned to be reported in the 1996 NAEP Report Cards inmathematics and science in early 1997. One chapter in each report will describeprocedures to increase inclusion and show the percentages of students in thesubsamples who correctly answered selected assessment items. A later report willbe devoted entirely to findings on the impact of including and accommodating SDand LEP students in the assessment.
Ongoing Research Studies on Inclusion Issues
 Because this is a pioneering effort by NAEP, and examination of the topicis difficult because of its many complexities, additional research is required.A number of studies are currently underway in NAEP to investigate further issuesrelated to inclusion of students with disabilities or limited Englishproficiency. This research includes studies of:
- Scaling issues --an investigation to determine if there is alack of fit between responses of students given under nonstandard assessmentconditions with those given under standard conditions, and if so, what mayaccount for it;
- Reporting issues --an examination of the implications of reportingNAEP in alternate ways (e.g., percent-correct metric) for SD and LEP studentswhen there is a lack of fit on the NAEP scale;
- Appropriateness of the inclusion criteria for SD and LEP students --forstudents with disabilities, a determination of the proper role of the IEP team;for LEP students, a closer look at whether the threshold for English-languagestudy should be two or three years;
- Construct validity of the assessment for SD and LEP students --comparisonsof the response patterns of students assessed under nonstandard conditions(e.g., with accommodations) with those of students assessed under standardconditions, and how they may differ; determination if NAEP is accuratelymeasuring what accommodated students know and can do;
- Language complexity issues --to examine whether native languageproficiency of LEP students affects performance on NAEP and what languageadaptations could be implemented into the assessment for these students; anotherstudy will examine if training scorers to recognize typical syntax, spelling,and other errors made by LEP students can improve the scoring of their responsesto extended constructed-response items; and
- Inclusion procedures --to investigate and determine if there stillare students being excluded who could be included in the assessment. 

It is hoped that this collection of studies will help NAEP make further progresstoward the goal of full inclusion, while preserving the overall validity of theassessment. Research studies like these are essential in order to ensure thatthe reporting of what students know and can do, as well as gauging theiracademic progress over the years, is done in a reliable, valid, and meaningfulway. As the various issues are examined and new procedures implemented, NAEPmust maintain its commitment to high technical standards, the continuity ofits trend data, and a balance of resources for the program.

 In conclusion, the changes incorporated into the 1996 NAEP that further thegoal of maximum inclusion of students with disabilities or limited Englishproficiency will result not only in an improved national assessment program, butwill also benefit states, school districts, and other entities that conductlarge-scale assessments. Many educators at these levels look to NAEP as a modelfor the best practice in assessment. Thus, NAEP needs to proceed in a thoughtfuland thorough manner in its implementation of a more inclusive assessment.
Notes
1.*The Trial State Assessment: Prospects and Realities. The Third Reportof the National Academy of Education Panel on the Evaluation of the NAEP 1992Trial State Assessment*. (National Academy of Education, Stanford University:1993).

2.*(a) Making Decisions about the Inclusion of Students with Disabilitiesin Large-Scale Assessments--A Report on a Working Conference to DevelopGuidelines on Inclusion and Accommodations*. (National Center on EducationalOutcomes, College of Education, University of Minnesota: 1994).

*(b) Recommendations for Making Decisions about the Participation ofStudents with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment Programs--A Report on aWorking Conference to Develop Guidelines for Statewide Assessments and Studentswith Disabilities.* (National Center on Educational Outcomes, College ofEducation, University of Minnesota: 1994).
*(c) Proceedings of the Conference on Inclusion Guidelines andAccommodations for Limited English Proficient Students in the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress*. (National Center for EducationStatistics, OERI, U.S. Dept. of Education: 1996).
 The *Focus on NAEP* series briefly summarizes information about theongoing development and implementation of the National Assessment of EducationalProgress. The series is a product of the National Center for EducationStatistics. **Gary W. Phillips** serves as the Associate Commissioner forEducation Assessment. This issue was written by **John F. Olson** of the Education StatisticsServices Institute (ESSI) and **Arnold A. Goldstein** of the National Centerfor Education Statistics.
For questions, and for more information about NAEP and to order NAEP products see the NAEP staff directory
IES  NCESNational Center for Education StatisticsJoin NewsflashNCES BlogEdNCES XEdNCES FacebookEdNCES LinkedInEdNCES YouTubeExplore the Institute of Education Sciences- IES
- Home
- About
- Publications
- Data
- Funding
- News
- IES Centers
- NCEE
- NCER
- NCES    - Home
  - About
  - Programs
  - Publications
  - Data
  - Data Training
  - School Search
  - News
  - Kids' Zone 
- NCSER
- IES Policies and Standards
- ED Data Inventory
- IES Diversity Statement
- NCES Statistical Standards
- Peer Review Process
- Privacy and Security Policies
- Public Access Policy
-  
- Contact Us
-  
- **U.S. Department of Education**
- Additional Resources
- ERIC
- Sitemap
- Organizational Chart