i

2003 State 

Special 

Education 

Outcomes

Marching On

In collaboration with:

Council of Chief State School Offi cers (CCSSO)

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

NATIONAL

C E N T E R O N

EDUCATIONAL

OUTCOMES









  

 





  









  





 





 



 



 



 

 

 



 

 

 







 

 



 

 









 



 











 

 





 









 





 





 



 



 



   

   

   

  



 

  

 





 

































  

 



   

   

   

 

  

 



  

 











 











  







  

  

   

   

  

 



   

 

 



 

 





















  

 







   

   

   

   







 

   



 

 



 

 























  

 



   

   



 





  

 



  

 











 













 







   

   

  

   

 







  

 

 



 

 





















   

 



 

   

   

   

  

  

 

   

 

 







 





















 

  





 

  

   

 

  

 

 

 

 





 





















 









   

   

   

   



 



  

 



































   

 



  

   

  

    





  

 



  

 







 

 





















  

  



  

  

  

 



   

 

 



 

 





















  









   

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 







 





















 





   

   

   

   

   

  







  







 





















 









   

 



   

   





   

 

 







 



























 







   

  

 



   

 

 



  

 

























  







 



  

   

   

   

   





   

 

   

 

 







 











  







 

   



 

   

  

 

   

 

 



 

 





















  

  





   

   

  

  







  







 







 











 











  

   

   

  

    

 

   

 





 

















 













 







  

  



  

   

 

 

   

 

 



 

























 

   



 

   

  

   







 

  



 

 





















 









    

  

   

   

   



 

  

 

 

 







 























 







   

   

  

    



 



  

 







 

 

























   



 

   

  

   

  

 

   

 

 





















  









   

   

   

  

   

  

   



 

 



 











 













 



 





  

    

  

   









  















 











  











   



 

    

 

   

  

 

   

 

 





















  









    

  

    

  

  

  

  



 

 



 











 











 

 

 





  

    

  

  

 

 



  































 







  

  



  

    







   

 

 



 

 





















  







 

   

  

    

  

 



   

  

 

 



 

 







 















  





 

  

    

  





 

 

 



 

 























 









  

 



  

    

  





    







 

 

 











 





















   

  

    

  

 

   

  

 











 





















  

  



 

  

    

  

  



 

 



 

 







 











 











  

 





  

    

 





    







  







 























 







   

  

    

 



 

    

 

 











 





















  

  



  

  

    





  



 

 



 

 







 











 

  





 

  

   

  

    



 

 

    

 

  































  







    

  

    

 

 

    

 

 

 







 





















   

  

   

  

  



  

  

 







 

 







 











  

 





 

  

    

  

    

 

 

    

 

   































 









   

  



  

  







  







 







 





















   

  

    

  

 



  

  

 







 











 











  



 



  

  

   

  

   

  

 

   

 

 







 























 









    

  

 

   







  







 







 





















    

  

   

  

 

    

 

 

 

































 

  



  

  

    

  

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 











  







 









 

   

  





    

 

   

 

 































    

  



  

 

 

     



 

 

















 











 

 

 

     

 

     

 





   





   





   

 















  







 









 

    

 

 

   

 

   

 

 































     

 



   

 



     



 

 







 







 













   

 

     

 

    

 



 

  

 







 







 















  







 









 

     







   

 

   

 





































     

 

   



 



     





 

































   

 

     

 

     

  

 

 

 







 







 

 











  









 









 

    







   





   

 

 











  







 











     

 

 

 

  

 

    





 

































 

  

 

     



   

 

    

 

 

 



 

 



 

 











   

 





 

  





 

  





 

 



 







 





  





 









 















 







 



 

 

  







 

 







 

 

 

 



 

 



 







 





   





  









  









 

   

   

   

  



 

  

 





 

































  

 



   

   

   

 

  

 



  

 











 











  







  

  

   

   

  

 



   

 

 



 

 





















  

 







   

   

   

   







 

   



 

 



 

 























  

 



   

   



 





  

 



  

 











 













 







   

   

  

   

 







  

 

 



 

 





















   

 



 

   

   

   

  

  

 

   

 

 







 





















 

  





 

  

   

 

  

 

 

 

 





 





















 









   

   

   

   



 



  

 



































   

 



  

   

  

    





  

 



  

 







 

 





















  

  



  

  

  

 



   

 

 



 

 





















  









   

   

   

   

 

 

 

 

 







 





















 





   

   

   

   

   

  







  







 





















 









   

 



   

   





   

 

 







 



























 







   

  

 



   

 

 



  

 

























  







 



  

   

   

   

   





   

 

   

 

 







 











  







 

   



 

   

  

 

   

 

 



 

 





















  

  





   

   

  

  







  







 







 











 











  

   

   

  

    

 

   

 





 

















 













 







  

  



  

   

 

 

   

 

 



 

























 

   



 

   

  

   







 

  



 

 





















 









    

  

   

   

   



 

  

 

 

 







 























 







   

   

  

    



 



  

 







 

 

























   



 

   

  

   

  

 

   

 

 





















  









   

   

   

  

   

  

   



 

 



 











 













 



 





  

    

  

   









  















 











  











   



 

    

 

   

  

 

   

 

 





















  









    

  

    

  

  

  

  



 

 



 











 











 

 

 





  

    

  

  

 

 



  































 







  

  



  

    







   

 

 



 

 





















  







 

   

  

    

  

 



   

  

 

 



 

 







 















  





 

  

    

  





 

 

 



 

 























 









  

 



  

    

  





    







 

 

 











 





















   

  

    

  

 

   

  

 











 





















  

  



 

  

    

  

  



 

 



 

 







 











 











  

 





  

    

 





    







  







 























 







   

  

    

 



 

    

 

 











 





















  

  



  

  

    





  



 

 



 

 







 











 

  





 

  

   

  

    



 

 

    

 

  































  







    

  

    

 

 

    

 

 

 







 





















   

  

   

  

  



  

  

 







 

 







 











  

 





 

  

    

  

    

 

 

    

 

   































 









   

  



  

  







  







 







 





















   

  

    

  

 



  

  

 







 











 











  



 



  

  

   

  

   

  

 

   

 

 







 























 









    

  

 

   







  







 







 





















    

  

   

  

 

    

 

 

 

































 

  



  

  

    

  

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 











  







 









 

   

  





    

 

   

 

 































    

  



  

 

 

     



 

 

















 











 

 

 

     

 

     

 





   





   





   

 















  







 









 

    

 

 

   

 

   

 

 































     

 



   

 



     



 

 







 







 













   

 

     

 

    

 



 

  

 







 







 















  







 









 

     







   

 

   

 





































     

 

   



 



     





 

































   

 

     

 

     

  

 

 

 







 







 

 











  









 









 

    







   





   

 

 











  







 











     

 

 

 

  

 

    





 

































 

  

 

     



   

 

    

 

 

 



 

 



 

 











   

 





 

  





 

  


i

2003 State 

Special 

Education 

Outcomes

Marching On

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior per mis sion, 

pro vid ed the source is cited as:

Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Out comes. 
ii NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The Mission of the National Center on 

Educational Outcomes

NCEO Staff

Deb Albus

Mike Anderson

Ann Clapper

Jane Krentz

Kristi Liu

Jane Minnema

Ross Moen

Michael Moore

Rachel Quenemoen

Dorene Scott

Sandra Thompson

Martha Thurlow, 

Director

NCEO IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, THE

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and 

the Council of Chief State School Offi cers (CCSSO). NCEO provides national 

lead er ship in assisting state and local education agencies in their de vel op ment of 

policies and practices that encourage and support the par tic i pa tion of students 

with dis abil i ties in ac count abil i ty systems and data collection efforts. 

NCEO focuses its efforts in the following areas:

• Research on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in 

state and national assessments and other educational reform efforts. 

• Dissemination and Technical Assistance through publications, pre sen ta tions, 

technical assistance, and other networking activities.

• Collaboration and Leadership to build on the expertise of others and to 

develop leaders who can conduct needed research and provide additional 

technical assistance.

The Center is supported primarily through a Cooperative Agreement 

(#H326G000001) with the Research to Practice Division, Offi ce of Special 

Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Ad di tion al support for 

targeted projects, including those on limited English profi cient students, is 

pro vid ed by other federal and state agencies. The Center is affi liated with the 

Institute on Com mu ni ty In te gra tion in the College of Education and Human 

De vel op ment, University of Min ne so ta. Opinions or points of view expressed 

within this document do not necessarily represent those of the Department of 

Education or the Offi ces within it.

National Center on Educational Outcomes

350 Elliott Hall

75 E. River Road

Minneapolis, MN 55455

612/626-1530 • Fax: 612/624-0879 • http://education.umn.edu/NCEO

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

December, 2003
iii Acknowledgments

ONCE AGAIN, WITH THE COLLECTIVE EFFORTS OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL

education, we are able to report on the activities of all 50 states and nine of 

eleven federally funded entities (unique states). Because of the thoughtful and 

knowledgeable responses of the directors and their designees who completed 

this survey, we are able to share new initiatives, trends, accomplishments, and 

emerging issues during this important period of education reform. The purpose 

of this report is not to check for compliance with federal mandates nor to judge 

the progress of any state; it is simply to provide a snapshot of critical information 

that allows states to move forward. We appreciate the time taken by respondents 

to gather information from people outside of special education, and we hope that 

this collaborative effort provided an opportunity to increase awareness within and 

across state programs and departments. 

For their support, special thanks go to:

• David Malouf and Lou Danielson, of the Offi ce of Special Education 

Programs in the U.S. Department of Education;

• Eileen Ahearn, of the National Association of State Directors of Special 

Education;

• Michael Moore, online survey designer and communications director for the 

National Center on Educational Outcomes; and

• Jaclyn Roverud and Jason Altman, graduate students who carefully collected 

and compiled a mountain of survey data.

2003 State Special Education Outcomes was prepared by Sandra Thompson and 

Martha Thurlow.

Acknowledgments
iv NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

ALABAMA

 Mabrey Whetstone

ALASKA

 Art Arnold

ARIZONA

 Joanne Phillips

ARKANSAS

 Marcia Harding 

CALIFORNIA

 Alice Parker

COLORADO

 Lorrie Harkness

CONNECTICUT

 George Dowaliby

DELAWARE

 Martha Brooks

FLORIDA

 Shan Goff

GEORGIA

 Philip Pickens 

HAWAII

 Paul Ban

IDAHO

 Jana Jones

ILLINOIS

 Chris Koch

INDIANA

 Robert Marra

IOWA

 Lana Michelson

KANSAS

 Zoeann Torrey

State Directors of Special Education

KENTUCKY

 Judy Mallory

LOUISIANA

 Virginia Beridon

MAINE

 David Stockford

MARYLAND

 Carol Ann Baglin

MASSACHUSETTS

 Marcia Mittnacht

MICHIGAN

 Jacquelyn Th omp son

MINNESOTA

 Norena Hale

 

MISSISSIPPI

 Melody Bounds

 

MISSOURI

 Melodie Friedebach

MONTANA

 Robert Runkel

NEBRASKA

 Gary Sherman, Don

 Anderson

NEVADA

 Gloria Dopf

 

NEW HAMPSHIRE

 Mary J. Ford

NEW JERSEY

 Barbara Gantwerk

NEW MEXICO

 Sam Howarth

NEW YORK

 Lawrence Gloeckler

NORTH CAROLINA

 Mary Watson

NORTH DAKOTA

 Robert Rutten

OHIO

 Mike Armstrong

OKLAHOMA

 Patricia Sholar

OREGON

 Bob Siewert

PENNSYLVANIA

 Fran Warkomski

RHODE ISLAND

 Thomas DiPaola

SOUTH CAROLINA

 Susan DuRant

SOUTH DAKOTA

 Michelle Powers

 

TENNESSEE

 Joseph Fisher

TEXAS

 Eugene Lenz

UTAH

 Karl Wilson

 

VERMONT

 Dennis Kane

VIRGINIA

 Doug Cox

WASHINGTON

 Doug Gill

WEST VIRGINIA

 Dee Braley

WISCONSIN

 Stephanie Petska

WYOMING

 Tammy Cox

AMERICAN SAMOA

 Moeolo Vaatausili

BUREAU OF IN DI AN 

AFFAIRS

 Sherry Allison

DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE

 Lorie Sebestyen 

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

 Anne Gay

GUAM

 Vince Leon Guerrero

MARIANA ISLANDS

 Joanne Nicholls 

MARSHALL ISLANDS

 Kanchi Hosia

MICRONESIA

 Makir Keller

PALAU

 Evans Imetengel

PUERTO RICO

 Sonia Rosario

U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS

 Belinda West-O’Neal

These were the state directors of special ed u ca tion 

in August 2003 when the 

survey was verifi ed.

 
v

THIS REPORT SUMMARIZES THE NINTH SURVEY OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCAtion by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University 

of Minnesota. Results include all 50 states and nine of the eleven federally funded 

entities (unique states). The purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of the 

new initiatives, trends, accomplishments, and emerging issues during this important 

period of education reform as states document the academic achievement of 

students with disabilities. 

Most state directors reported that more students with disabilities are accessing 

state/district academic content standards with increased academic expectations, 

and more students with disabilities are participating in statewide assessments 

and included in accountability systems. The majority of directors also reported 

improved performance by students with disabilities on state assessments. In 

addition, nearly all state directors reported increased participation of special 

educators in training on standards and assessment, and nearly three quarters 

reported increased networking between general and special educators. 

Among the major fi ndings of the 2003 survey are the following:

• States identify more positive than negative consequences of the participation of 

students with disabilities in standards, assessments, and accountability.

• Most regular states are studying trends in the achievement of students with 

disabilities, and some states are studying the results of assessments by item.

• More than three-quarters of regular and unique states collect data on 

accommodations used on state assessments.

• Three-quarters of the states have one alternate assessment option that addresses 

the needs of students with signifi cant cognitive disabilities; other states have 

several alternate assessment options to address the perceived needs of a range of 

students in addition to those with signifi cant cognitive disabilities. 

• The most common approach to alternate assessment involves a portfolio 

assessment focused on grade level or expanded standards with the same 

achievement level descriptors as the general assessment; the portfolios are scored 

by teachers who use scoring rubrics to assign scores.

• Over 80% of special education directors were involved in their state’s 

development of the defi nition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) required for 

the No Child Left Behind Act.

• States are paying increased attention to access to assessments through the use of 

elements of universal design and accessible computer-based tests. 

Though the progress of students with disabilities in this era of standards-based 

accountability has been noteworthy, states continue to face many challenges in their 

efforts to increase student achievement and administer assessments that provide 

valid documentation of this achievement.

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
vi NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................iii

State Directors of Special Education........................................................................... iv

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................v

Overview of 2003 Survey.............................................................................................1

Consequences................................................................................................................2

Participation and Performance ....................................................................................5

 

Accommodations ..........................................................................................................8

 

Alternate Assessments.................................................................................................11

 Alternate Assessment Approach ................................................................................13

 Alternate Assessment Content ..................................................................................14

 Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors................................................15

 Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria .......................................................................16

 Scoring Alternate Assessments ..................................................................................18

 Alternate Assessment Standard Setting......................................................................20

Accountability.............................................................................................................22

Emerging Practices .....................................................................................................24

 Item Analysis............................................................................................................24

 Universally Designed Assessments.............................................................................25

 Computer-based State Assessments...........................................................................26

Current and Emerging Issues.....................................................................................28

 High Stakes Graduation Assessments ........................................................................30

 Assessment Results Used for Grade Promotion .........................................................32

 Referrals for Special Education Services ....................................................................32

 Legal Challenges ......................................................................................................33

 Gap Issues................................................................................................................34
vii

 Out-of-Level or Levels Testing Options....................................................................35

 Emerging Issues .......................................................................................................36

Preferred Forms of Technical Assistance ...................................................................38

Table of Contents
viii NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES
1

THIS REPORT MARKS THE NINTH TIME OVER THE PAST TWELVE YEARS THAT THE

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has collected information 

from state directors of special education about the participation and achievement 

of students with disabilities during standards-based reform. With the passage 

of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, reform efforts continue to evolve as 

states become accountable for reaching the goal of academic profi ciency for every 

student.

The 2003 Special Education Outcomes Survey focuses on the implications of 

educational reform since the 2001 passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and 

anticipation of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). Results are presented in eight sections:

• Consequences

• Participation and Performance

• Accommodations

• Alternate Assessments

• Accountability 

• Emerging Practices

• Current and Emerging Issues

• Preferred Forms of Technical Assistance 

Participants in the 2003 survey included state directors of special education 

from all 50 states and 11 federal jurisdictions that abide by the provisions of 

IDEA. These jurisdictions are referred to in this report as “unique states.” 

Responses to the survey were gathered online and via fax during the winter and 

spring of 2003 (February–May). To view the survey instrument, go to http://

education.umn.edu/nceo/NCEOSurveys/2003NCEOsurvey.pdf. Surveys were 

completed by state directors with the assistance of other state offi cials representing 

special education, standards, assessment, and accountability. 

Once compiled, drafts of tables were sent to state directors for verifi cation in July 

and August. Overall, responses were obtained from all 50 regular states and from 

nine unique states.

As you will read throughout this report, although the progress of students with 

disabilities in this era of standards-based accountability has been noteworthy, 

states continue to face many challenges in their efforts to increase student 

achievement and administer assessments that provide valid documentation of this 

achievement for accountability purposes.

Overview of 2003 Survey

Overview

Eleven Unique 

States

American Samoa

Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)

Department of Defense

District of Columbia

Guam

Mariana Islands

Marshall Islands

Micronesia

Palau

Puerto Rico

U.S. Virgin Islands
2 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Most states experienced 

increased inclusion in 

accountability systems and 

increased participation 

in state assessments for 

students with disabilities.

Consequences

THE “BOTTOM LINE”—THE CONSEQUENCES OF INCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT AND

accountability—continues to be an important topic for states. In the 2003 

survey, states were asked to identify the positive and negative consequences of 

the participation of students with disabilities in state standards, assessment, and 

accountability systems that they had observed since 2001 when NCEO last asked 

them this question. In 2003, the states started from a list based on their 2001 

responses. Figure 1 lists the percentages of regular and unique states indicating 

each of the consequences.

The most often selected positive consequences among the regular states were 

increased inclusion in the accountability system (96%) and increased participation 

in state assessments (90%). The most often selected positive consequences 

among the unique states were increased participation in state assessments (78%) 

and increased participation of special educators in training on standards and 

assessment (78%). The least often selected positive consequence was improved 

performance for both regular states (64%) and unique states (22%). Still, more 

than half of the regular states selected this as a positive consequence.

Figure 1. Positive Consequences of the Participation of Students with 

Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

Increased inclusion in accountability system

Increased participation in state assessments

Increased academic expectations

Increased participation of special educators in training on standards 

and assessment

Increased access to state/district academic content standards

Increased general and special education networking

Increased use of appropriate accommodations

Improved performance on state/district assessments

Regular States

Unique States

22

67

33

64

70

70

82

86

88

90

56

78

56

78

56

96

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of States
Consequences 3

In addition to the positive consequences listed in Figure 1, state directors made 

these comments: 

“Perhaps the biggest benefi t for children with disabilities has been 

the focus of general education on improving the quality of education for children with disabilities. As schools make their plans for 

school improvement, they focus efforts on children with disabilities for the purpose of increasing the number of students scoring 

at the profi ciency level. Because students with disabilities comprise 

a disproportionate share of students who are not at the profi ciency 

level, they are the direct benefi ciaries of district wide efforts to 

improve student performance.” 

“Districts and schools are starting to use disaggregated student 

achievement data to focus on the learning outcomes of students 

with disabilities.”

“Quality of IEPs has improved.”

“Improved data based instruction and higher expectations for 

students with signifi cant cognitive disabilities.”

“NCLB has at least made district and school administrators make 

sure they know every student that is enrolled in their district or 

building is accounted for so they get credit for every student in the 

NCLB participation rate and AYP calculations.”

Far fewer state directors selected negative outcomes than positive. The negative 

outcomes identifi ed are shown in Figure 2. The greatest fear is that students with 

disabilities will not be able to achieve profi ciency on state assessments.

In addition to the negative consequences listed in Figure 2, state directors made 

these comments:

“Use of accommodations and alternate methods of assistance is 

labor intensive and more costly.”

“Small schools and those that house center-based programs with 

scores reported to the school of instruction can be negatively impacted by the scores of students with IEPs.”

“Immediate referrals to special education when assessment 

scores are low with the expectation that they are automatically 

eligible, causing confl icts between general education and special 

education.”

“Resistance to placement of students with disabilities in school 

buildings when perception is that they will bring down the 

school’s scores.”
4 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 2. Negative Consequences of the Participation of Students with 

Disabilities in Standards, Assessments, and Accountability

“Many teachers of students participating in the alternate assessment don’t like the idea of being held accountable for their 

students’ performance. They have had a pass on this for too many 

years and are now very nervous about it.”

Students with disabilities cannot achieve profi cient level

Students with disabilities are stressed by taking tests

Students with disabilities make schools look less effective

Students with disabilities cannot access or reach state 

standards

Students with disabilities may not graduate

Too many students are identifi ed for alternate assessments

Regular States

Unique States

22

22

33

33

11

44

12

20

26

28

40

48

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of States
5

Participation and Performance

STATES ARE REQUIRED BY IDEA TO REPORT THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH

disabilities who participate in state assessments. NCLB requires the reporting of 

participation rates by subgroup, including students with disabilities. States report 

students who do not participate in state assessments (e.g., absent on test day, 

parent refusal, hospitalized) in a variety of ways. As in 2001, eight regular states 

gave these students a score of zero or the lowest score in 2003 (see Figure 3); one 

unique state also used this approach in 2003. There was an increase from 2001 to 

2003 of 7 to 16 regular states that counted students (e.g., count as participating) 

even though they received no score. Two unique states counted these students in 

2003.

Most of the states in the “other” category reported that the way students are 

reported depends on the reason for non-participation. For example, Delaware’s 

state director wrote, “It depends on the reason why. For example, if a student 

does not participate because of truancy that student is counted with the lowest 

score. If there is an acceptable reason, for example hospitalization, the student 

is granted a special exemption and there is no accountability consequence.” 

Connecticut commented, “Present but no responses counts as participated for 

NCLB and in calculations of performance as not profi cient. Absent students count 

as non-participants, but do not count in calculations for performance.”

States were beginning to be able to document trends across years in the state 

assessment performance of students with disabilities (see Figure 4). In 2003, 40 

of 50 regular states’ directors of special education (80%) responded that they were 

able to document trends. Two unique states also reported the ability to document 

trends across years.

Many states commented on the trends question. Table 1 includes a few examples 

of states that commented on changes in assessment performance, and states that 

noted diffi culties in reporting trends.

Sixteen regular states 

counted students as participating in assessments 

even though they received 

no score. Only seven of 

these states did so in 2001.

Participation and Performance
6 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Figure 3. Ways States Count Students Who are Not Assessed

WA MT ND

OR

NV

CA

ID WY

UT

AZ

CO

NM

SD

NE

KS

TX

OK

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MI

OH

KY

MS

TN

FL

AL

GA

SC

NC

VA

PA

NY

ME

WV

AK

HI

VT

NH

CT

NJ

DE

MD

IN

MA

RI

Student counted, lowest score or score of 

zero (n= 8) 

Student counted, no score reported (n=16) 

Student not counted, no score reported (n=14) 

Other or undecided (n=12) 

American Samoa 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Commonwealth N. Mariana Islands 

Department of Defense 

District of Columbia 

Guam

Marshall Islands 

Micronesia (no response) 

Palau

Puerto Rico (no response) 

Virgin Islands 

Unique States
7

Table 1. Examples of Sates’ Comments on Trends

Trends show improved 

state assessment 

performance of 

students with 

disabilities

“Trend data from 1998 to 2001 show that students on IEPs made 

progress each year on the reading and writing tests, and to a 

lesser extent, math.”

“The percentage of students with disabilities scoring at Level 3 

and above on the Grade 4 English Language Arts (ELA) examination increased 6.6 percentage points since 1999, from 19.0 percent 

to 25.6 percent. Greater numbers of students with disabilities 

are tested on each examination compared to the previous year. 

The number of students with disabilities tested has tripled and 

quadrupled since 1997. Increasing numbers of students with disabilities have also achieved passing scores each year.”

“Over a three year period there has been improvement in the 

assessment scores of students in grades 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Reading 

scores have improved signifi cantly for grades K-3.”

 “We are seeing small but steady increases in participation rates 

and performance.”

Trends show unchanged or lower 

state assessment performance of students 

with disabilities

“Results from the 2002 assessment administration indicated that 

progress of students on IEPs in different grade levels and content 

areas either remained unchanged or slightly declined. These fi ndings were comparable to overall state results.”

“Over a three year period the scores are fl at in grades 6 and 9. 

Scores are slightly down in grades 10 and 11.”

Changes in state 

assessments have 

made trends diffi cult 

to report

“The state changed its standards based assessment this year so 

this will be the fi rst year of reportable data.” 

“Our state assessment system has changed so a trend is not possible until 3 years have passed. The year 2003 is the fi rst year our 

new statewide assessment system will be able to produce data for 

analysis.” 

 “Spring 2002 administration was the fi rst year in which all data 

on special education students was integrated (both regular and 

alternate assessment data).”

“We will be changing assessments next year.”

Most states are now able 

to document trends in the 

state assessment performance of students with 

disabilities.

Participation and Performance

Figure 4. States Able to Document Trends in Assessment Performance of 

Students with Disabilities

Regular States

Yes

80%

No

2%

In 

progress

18%

Unique States

Yes

22%

No

22%

In 

progress

56%
8 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Accommodations

EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT OF THE REGULAR STATES AND 78% OF THE UNIQUE STATES

reported that they collected data on the accommodations that students use 

on state assessments (see Figure 5). The specifi c information that is coded by 

states appears in Table 2. Increasing numbers of states code accommodations 

information from students’ IEPs onto test forms and then verify that information 

at testing. Three unique states have also initiated this process.

Figure 5. States Reporting Data on Assessment Accommodations Use

WA MT ND

OR

NV

CA

ID WY

UT

AZ

CO

NM

SD

NE

KS

TX

OK

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MI

OH

KY

MS

TN

FL

AL

GA

SC

NC

VA

PA

NY

ME

WV

AK HI

VT

NH

CT

NJ

DE

MD

IN

MA

RI

No accommodations data collected 

(n=3)

Accommodations data collected at 

local level only (n=4) 

Accommodations data collected at 

state level (n=43) 

No accommodations data collected 

(n=3)

Accommodations data collected at 

local level only (n=4)

Accommodations data collected at 

state level (n=43)

Note: None of the unique states reported collecting data on accommodations use.
9

Table 2. State Documentation of Assessment Accommodations Use

State

Test Form Codes 

“Standard” or 

“Nonstandard” 

Accommodations

Test Form Codes 

Some or All 

Accommodations

IEP Information 

Coded on Test 

Form and Verifi ed 

During Testing

No 

Accommodations 

Data Collected at 

State Level

Alabama ■

Alaska ■

Arkansas ■ ■

Arizona ■

California ■

Colorado ■

Connecticut ■

Delaware ■

Florida ■

Georgia ■

Hawaii ■

Idaho ■

Illinois ■

Iowa ■

Indiana ■

Kansas ■ ■

Kentucky ■ ■

Louisiana ■ ■

Maine ■ ■

Maryland ■

Massachusetts ■ ■

Michigan ■

Minnesota ■

Mississippi ■

Missouri ■

Montana ■

Nebraska ■

Nevada ■

New Hampshire ■

New Jersey ■

New Mexico ■

New York ■

North Carolina ■

North Dakota ■ ■

Ohio ■

Oklahoma ■

Oregon ■

Pennsylvania ■

Rhode Island ■

South Carolina ■

Accommodations
10 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

State

Test Form Codes 

“Standard” or 

“Nonstandard” 

Accommodations

Test Form Codes 

Some or All 

Accommodations

IEP Information 

Coded on Test 

Form and Verifi ed 

During Testing

No 

Accommodations 

Data Collected at 

State Level

South Dakota ■

Tennessee ■

Texas ■

Utah ■

Vermont ■ ■

Virginia ■ ■

Washington ■

West Virginia ■

Wisconsin ■

Wyoming ■

Total Regular 

States 15 25 12 7

American Samoa ■

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs

■ ■

Department of 

Defense

■

District of 

Columbia

■

Guam ■

Mariana Islands ■

Marshall Islands ■

Micronesia*

Palau ■

Puerto Rico*

U.S. Virgin Islands ■

Total Unique 

States 06 4 0

Table 2. State Documentation of Assessment Accommodations Use (continued)

* No response.
11

Alternate Assessments

ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS, THOSE ASSESSMENTS DESCRIBED IN IDEA 97 AS ASSESSMENTS

for students unable to participate in regular state or district-wide assessments, 

have evolved a great deal since NCEO began tracking them in 1997, even though 

states were fi rst required to implement them in 2000. 

Most states (33 regular states and 5 unique states) offer a single type of alternate 

assessment for students with the most signifi cant disabilities who are unable to 

participate in general state assessments even with accommodations. However, 

eight states offer two alternate assessment options and three states offer three or 

more options tied to their alternate assessment. Table 3 describes the alternate 

assessments in states with multiple options. As is evident in the table, these 

options tend to refl ect the needs of a range of students in addition to those with 

signifi cant cognitive disabilities.

The remainder of this section on alternate assessments focuses on the assessments 

states have designed for the very small number of students with the most 

signifi cant cognitive disabilities. 

Most states offer a single 

alternate assessment, 

intended for use by a very 

small number of students 

with the most signifi cant 

disabilities.

Alternate Assessments
12 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 3. States with Multiple Alternate Assessment Options

State

Number of 

Options Description

Alaska 2 Alternate Assessment: Portfolio assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities. 

Optional Assessment (OA): Regular exam which allows “controversial” accommodations (e.g. , use of calculator, clarify test questions, etc.). An OA must 

be approved by the Department, called for in an IEP or 504 plan, and can only 

be taken if the student has taken the exam once with or without regular accommodations and failed.

Alabama 2 Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA): IEP based. 

Alabama Occupational Portfolio Assessment (AOPA): Based on students’ 

portfolios.

Connecticut 2 Alternate Assessment Option 1: Out-of-level testing. 

Alternate Assessment Option 2: CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist mirrors the 

domains tested on the standard assessments, with a functional focus.

Kansas 2 Alternate Assessment: The IEP team selects 15 indicators from the extended standards; an evidence fi le of the student’s work on those indicators is 

collected. The adults who have collected the evidence are interviewed about 

the student’s work.

Modifi ed Assessment: The indicators that are marked for the general assessment have been modifi ed and the modifi ed assessment is developed from these 

indicators. Only students with IEPs or 504 plans are eligible for the modifi ed 

assessment. The IEP team determines if the student meets the criteria for the 

modifi ed assessment. 

Michigan 2 MI-Access Phase 1: Students who have, or function as if they have, severe or 

moderate cognitive impairment, are administered either MI-Access Participation or MI-Access Supported Independence assessments. 

Phase 2: Students who have or function as if they have, mild cognitive impairment, are currently administered an alternate assessment determined by the 

IEP Team until the MI-Access Phase 2 assessments are completed. Tentatively 

scheduled to be administered statewide during the 2005/2006 school year in 

grades 3-8 and grade 11.

New Jersey 2 NJ Alternate Profi ciency Assessment: Portfolio assessment for students 

with disabilities who cannot complete the types of items on the general assessment for their grade. 

Special Review Assessment (SRA): An alternative.

North Carolina 2 Alternate Assessment Portfolio: Assesses students on Extensions of SCS 

based on student’s IEP.

Alternate Assessment Academic Inventory: Assessment based on SC 

study.

Oregon 5 Extended Career and Life Role Assessment System (CLRAS): Assesses 

related skills in the context of “real” life routines.

Extended Reading, Extended Mathematics, and Extended Writing: 

Curriculum based measures of emerging academics that are aligned to the 

general Benchmark 1 standards in the same subjects.

A juried assessment is also available.

Tennessee 2 Portfolio Assessment: A body of evidence gathered throughout the school 

year and scored using a rubric in the spring of the school year. 

Academic Skills Assessment: This is the out-of-level test option. The level of 

the test is based on the student’s instructional reading level.
13

Table 3. States with Multiple Alternate Assessment Options (continued)

State

Number of 

Options Description

Utah 3 Utah’s Alternate Assessment: Students with severe disabilities, especially 

severe cognitive disabilities.

Out-of-level criterion referenced tests.

CRT with modifi cations: For this last year, we do not have data that corresponds with who is taking the test this way.

Vermont 3 Adapted form of the general assessment.

Modifi ed form of the general assessment.

“Lifeskills” alternate assessment: For students with signifi cant cognitive 

disabilities.

Alternate Assessment Approach

Alternate assessments were developed and implemented fi rst in the regular states. 

In 2003, most of the regular states used a portfolio or body of evidence approach 

in their alternate assessments for students with signifi cant cognitive disabilities. 

Still, the number of states using a portfolio or body of evidence approach 

decreased from 28 states in 2000 to 24 states in 2001 to 23 states in 2003 (see 

Table 4). The number of states using a rating scale or checklist increased from 4 

states to 15 states during the same time frame. Three of the regular states were 

revising their alternate assessment system in 2003. 

Four of the fi ve unique states with alternate assessments in place in 2003 used a 

portfolio or body of evidence approach. The other used an IEP analysis approach. 

States listed under “other” allow local selection of an alternate assessment 

approach or require a performance assessment. 

Table 4. Alternate Assessment Approaches 2000-2003

Year

Portfolio/

Body of 

Evidence

Rating Scale/

Checklist IEP Analysis Other

In 

Development/

Revision

Regular States

2000 28 (56%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 6 (12%) 7 (14%)

2001 24 (48%) 9 (18%) 3 (6%) 12 (24%) 2 (4%)

2003 23 (46%) 15 (30%) 4 (8%) 5 (10%) 3 (6%)

Unique States

2003 4 (44%) 0 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%)

Alternate Assessments

Although decreased in 

number since 2001, the 

majority of states continue 

to use a portfolio or body 

of evidence approach to 

alternate assessment.
14 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The variability within each category of approach is considerable. In 2003, of the 

states using portfolio (body of evidence) assessments, 9 states used a standardized 

set of performance events, tasks, or skills. Six of the 15 regular states using 

a rating scale of performance on a standardized set of events, tasks, or skills 

required the submission of a body of evidence. Similarly, half of the regular states 

that used an analysis of progress on IEP goals required the submission of a body 

of evidence. 

Alternate Assessment Content

Eighty percent of the regular states aligned their alternate assessments with state 

academic content standards in 2003 (see Figure 6), either through grade-level 

or expanded standards or through a combination of these and functional skills. 

Only two states (4 percent) continued to conduct alternate assessments that were 

not aligned to state standards, and three states (6 percent) allowed IEP teams to 

select the content used on their alternate assessment. 

Five of the nine unique states that responded to the survey had alternate 

assessments in place. Two of the unique states’ alternate assessments (22 percent) 

were aligned to standards, two contained a combination of state standards and 

functional skills, and one unique state allowed IEP teams to determine content.

Figure 6. Types of Alternate Assessment Content

0

22

11

0

22

22

6

4

6

4

8

72

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Currently developing/revising

IEP teams determine alternate assessment

content

Functional skills (no alignment to standards)

Combination of state standards and functional

skills

Grade level or expanded state/district academic

content standards

Percent of States

Regular States

Unique States

Nearly all states now 

align their alternate 

assessments to state 

standards.

Grade level or expanded state/district academic content standards

Combination of state standards and functional skills

Functional skills (no alignment to standards)

IEP teams determine alternate assessment content

Currently developing/revising

Other

Regular States

Unique States
15

Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors

Nearly two thirds of regular states and one third of unique states used the same 

achievement level descriptors for their alternate assessments as they did for their 

general state assessments in 2003 (see Table 5). This is up considerably from 

2001 for regular states, where historical data are available.

Table 5. Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors

Same as General 

Assessment

Different from 

General

Assessment

Currently

Developing/

Revising 

Regular States

2001 18 (36%) 19 (38%) 13 (26%)

2003 31 (62%) 16 (32%) 3 (27%)

Unique States

2003 3 (27%) 2 (18%) 3 (27%)

Table 6 shows examples of achievement level descriptors in states that used 

different descriptors for their alternate assessment from what they used for the 

general assessment.

Table 6. Examples of Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors

State Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors

Arkansas Independent, functional independent, supported independent, emergent, 

not evidenced

Colorado Inconclusive, exploring, emerging, developing, novice

Georgia Initial, emerging, profi cient, functional

Illinois Attaining, progressing, emerging, attempting

Indiana Not evident, emerging, developing, demonstrated

West Virginia Awareness, progressing, competent, generalized

Wyoming Beginner, partially skilled, skilled

Alternate Assessments
16 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria

Most regular states (40) place their scoring criteria for the alternate assessment 

within some type of rubric. States that do not use a rubric assign points on a 

rating scale (8 states), score number of items correct (5 states), or score reading 

rate or accuracy (2 states). Scoring criteria can be a direct measure of student 

achievement (student criteria); they may refl ect necessary system conditions 

essential for student success (system criteria); or they can be a combination 

of student achievement seen within the context of system-provided supports 

(combination). 

As shown in Figure 7, there is great variation in the scoring criteria of states. This 

variation is also evident among unique states. The largest number of states score a 

student’s level of assistance needed to complete a task (or independence) and the 

second largest number score a student’s competence in completing a task. 

For NCEO’s in-depth analysis of the scoring criteria in fi ve states, see Measuring 

Academic Achievement of Students with Signifi cant Cognitive Disabilities: Building 

Understanding of Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria (Synthesis Report 50), 

http:// education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.

Alternate assessment 

scoring criteria continue 

to vary greatly across 

states.
17

Figure 7. Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria (for states using rubrics)

0

0

33

33

22

33

33

22

33

11

44

33

44

44

4

2

12

22

24

24

34

42

42

46

54

66

18

38

0 20 40 60 80 100

her

ion

ion

ips

port

ion

port

rds

ge,

ity)

lize

ess

ngs

nce

nce

Percent of States

Alternate Assessments

Independence

Skill/competence

Variety of settings

Progress

Ability to generalize

Appropriateness (age, 

challenge, authenticity)

Alignment to standards

Access to support

Self determination

Staff support

Social relationships

General education 

participation

Parent satisfaction

Other

Regular States

Unique States
18 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Scoring Alternate Assessments

Most regular and unique states had their alternate assessments scored by teachers 

(see Figure 8). In the regular states, this was often completed by teachers from 

other districts rather than the students’ teachers. Other frequent scorers included 

the test development contractor and the state education agency. 

Figure 8. Alternate Assessment Scorers

0

33

11

22

0

0

44

8

6

12

24

32

16

36

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Currently

Developing/Revising

Teachers within

student's district

State education agency

Test contractor

Teachers from other

districts

Student's teacher or IEP

member

Percent of States

Regular States

Unique States

Student’s teacher or IEP member

Teachers from other districts

Test contractor

State education agency

Teachers within student’s district

Currently developing/revising

Other

Regular States

Unique States

Several states described their alternate assessment scoring process. The examples 

in Table 7 show the diversity in the complexity of this process across the country. 

This diversity is also refl ected in the scoring processes used in the unique states.
19

Table 7. Examples of Alternate Assessment Scoring Process

State Scored by teachers in the same or different district as student 

Delaware Trained teachers are the primary scorers who meet over a two week period to review 

portfolios and submit scores to the University contractor who issues score reports and 

submits data to the state.

Kentucky Each student portfolio is scored three times by individual teachers at regional scoring 

sessions. Teachers do not score their own portfolios, nor do they score those from their 

own school. The fi rst 2 scores are compared and areas of discrepancy resolved by the 3rd 

score. All teachers who assist students in completing alternate portfolios are required to 

score, affording those teachers the opportunity to examine multitudes of student work 

and programmatic approaches.

Maine Student work is submitted to the contractor for logistics. Portfolios are then sent to a 

scoring site where educators receive training before scoring student work. Portfolios are 

returned to the contractor for data collection and writing of parent/school/district and 

state reports

Oklahoma Portfolios are submitted to the State Department of Education. Teachers apply to be 

scorers. Teams of four teachers score each portfolio using four point rubrics. Overall 

score is based on each piece of evidence, support for each piece of evidence, two authentic performance tasks and supports, and a portfolio content score.

Tennessee Each portfolio is scored 3 times by trained teachers (other than the submitting teacher), 

and the middle score is submitted online to the state. These scores are submitted to 

the Division of Evaluation & Assessment for aggregating and disaggregating as appropriate with other students’ scores in that district. A random sampling (about 10%) of those 

portfolios are selected and scored by a statewide team for verifi cation.

State Scored by a student’s special education teacher and IEP team members

Colorado Once the teacher has completed administration, all materials are returned to the test 

publisher. The receiving department checks materials for completeness and score sheets 

are sent to the Data Entry department for analysis. The company then provides a total 

composite score and assigns the appropriate performance category (used for state, 

district, and building reports). Student and building reports also include sub scores that 

provide a total score for the Indicators categorized under a sub concept (e.g., gaining 

meaning from text within the reading assessment).

Idaho All eligible students are rated by the teacher on the same items in reading, math, and 

language art extended standards, using a rubric. Data sources are required to support the 

rating, such as work samples, video clips, etc. A random sample of students is rated by a 

second person. 80% reliability must exist between the fi rst and second rater in order for 

the results to be considered valid.

Louisiana Teacher observation of student’s performance on identifi ed skills is scored on a six point 

rubric and sent to the test company contractor.

Nebraska Individual scoring sheets are sent in by the LEAs to the state for reporting purposes. 

These results are aggregated and reported to the public through our State of the Schools 

Report

South Dakota The person who collects the evidence of student learning (could be sp. ed. teacher, 

general ed. teacher, parent, related service provider, etc.) rates the student in the fall and 

spring. Those scores are transferred onto a reporting form that is sent to the state by 

May 1 of each year.

Wyoming IEP Team meets and reviews assessment data (body of evidence) and scores using state 

rubric. Profi ciency levels are recorded on forms and sent to contractor for tabulation and 

reporting.

State Scored by test development contractor

Arkansas Student work is submitted to test company for scoring and reporting.

Alternate Assessments
20 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Table 7. Examples of Alternate Assessment Scoring Process (continued)

State Scored by test development contractor

Illinois (1) Work submitted to test contractor; (2) Portfolio scored; (3) Reports generated but 

portfolios not returned.

Kansas Three adults (respondents) who have worked with the student during the current school 

year and have submitted evidence (student work) into the evidence fi le are interviewed 

about the work. The examiner (interviewer) is responsible for confi rming and recording 

an accurate rating of that work based on the respondents’ information. The examiner 

records the rating on an answer sheet and it is sent to the test coordinator for scoring.

Alternate Assessment Standard Setting

A standard-setting process defi nes what scores mean. Usually this involves 

identifying “cut scores” that separate different levels of achievement. Methods for 

developing this process for alternate assessments differ across states and, as shown 

in Figure 9, about half of the regular states and one-fourth of the unique states 

used a standard-setting process for their alternate assessments in 2003. 

Figure 9. States with a Standard-setting Process for Alternate Assessments

Table 8 describes the most commonly used standard-setting processes for 

alternate assessments and lists the states that use them. As is evident in the table, 

most states used a reasoned judgment standard-setting approach in 2003. A few 

states selected more than one technique, and one unique state responded that 

standard-setting is done, but did not select a technique.

States apply a variety 

of standard-setting 

techniques to alternate 

assessments, including 

reasoned judgment, 

bookmarking or item 

mapping, contrasting 

groups, body of work, 

and judgmental policy 

capturing. Regular States

Yes

52%

No

14%

Don't 

know

10%

Other

16%

Informal 

process

8%

Unique States

Yes

22%

No

33%

Other

45%
21

Table 8. Standard-setting Techniques that States Apply to Alternate Assessments

Technique Description*

States that Apply this 

Technique to Alternate 

Assessments

Reasoned 

Judgment

A score scale (e.g., 32 points) is divided into a 

desired number of categories (e.g., 4) in some way 

(equally, larger in the middle, etc.); the categories 

are determined by a group of experts, policymakers, or others.

Alaska

Arkansas

Connecticut

Delaware

Illinois

Louisiana

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Hew Hampshire

New York

North Dakota

Rhode Island

Virginia

West Virginia

Department of Defense

Bookmarking or 

Item Mapping

Standard-setters mark the spot in a specially 

constructed test booklet (arranged in order of 

item diffi culty) where a desired percentage of 

minimally profi cient (or advanced) students would 

pass the item; or, standard-setters mark where 

the difference in performance of the profi cient 

and advanced student on an exercise is a desired 

minimum percentage of students.

Alabama

California

Colorado

New Mexico

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Contrasting 

Groups

Teachers separate students into groups based on 

their observations of the students in the classroom; the scores of the students are then calculated to determine where scores will be categorized 

in the future.

Arkansas

North Carolina

Pennsylvania

Body of Work Reviewers examine all of the data for a student 

and use this information to place the student in 

one of the overall performance levels. Standard 

setters are given a set of papers that demonstrate 

the complete range of possible scores from low to 

high.

Arkansas

Tennessee

Department of Defense

Judgmental 

Policy Capturing

Reviewers determine which of the various components of an overall assessment are more important than others so that components or types of 

evidence are weighted.

Kansas

*Descriptions from: Roeber, E. (2002). Setting Standards on Alternate Assessments (Synthesis Report 42). Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes (http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/

Synthesis42.html).

Alternate Assessments
22 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Accountability

EACH STATE DEFINED ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS (AYP) TO MEET THE REQUIREments of the No Child Left Behind Act. Over 80% of the state directors of 

special education in the regular states, but only about 30% in the unique 

states, responded that they were involved in their states’ development of this 

defi nition (see Figure 10). One state director commented that special education 

representatives were included on an internal AYP workgroup to provide 

direction to the state-level AYP committee. Another commented that state 

special education personnel were involved in the process of setting cut scores 

and performance descriptors for determining AYP for the statewide general 

assessment. One state director said that special education personnel were 

informed, but not involved. 

Regular States

Yes

82%

No

14%

Other

4%

Unique States

Yes

33%

No

22%

Other

45%

Figure 10. States with Special Education Personnel Involvement in 

Development of AYP Defi nition

Most regular states’ AYP formulas (74%) used the same cell sizes for students 

with disabilities as for the general student population (see Figure 11). Six state 

directors responded that the minimum cell size for students with disabilities 

is larger than that of the general population. For example, Wisconsin set the 

minimum for students with disabilities at 50, with all other subgroups set at 40. 

Colorado used a minimum N of 16 for the purposes of reporting and an N of 

30 for accountability, but the N is the same for students with disabilities and the 

general student population. 

Most state directors from unique states do not know whether the subgroup size 

for AYP was the same for students with disabilities and other students. Some of 

the unique states had not defi ned AYP at the time the survey was conducted.

Most state directors of 

special education have 

been involved in the 

development of their 

states’ defi nitions of 

Adequate Yearly 

Progress.
23

Figure 11. States with Same AYP Cell Size for Disability Subgroup

Unique States

Same

22%

Do

kno

45

Varies

33%

Regular States

Accountability

Don't

know

45%

Same

74%

Different

12%

Don't 

know

8%

Varies

6%
24 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Emerging Practices

Item Analysis

ONLY FIVE STATES INDICATED THAT THEY ANALYZED THEIR ASSESSMENT RESULTS BY

item for students with disabilities during 2003 (see Figure 12). These states 

were Alaska, Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. A few states 

indicated that they planned to conduct item analyses in the future. These 

states included fi ve regular states (Colorado, Delaware, Maine, South Carolina, 

Tennessee) and two unique states (Marshall Islands, Virgin Islands). Nearly one 

fourth of state directors in both the regular and unique states responded that they 

did not know whether results were analyzed by item for students with disabilities, 

perhaps refl ecting a need for increased data discussions between state assessment 

and special education departments. 

One state director commented that the test vendor is required to research the 

impact of specifi c accommodations to determine whether they invalidate the 

test. In another state, items are subject to a complete analysis to detect bias and 

differential functioning. Items that are fl agged as problematic do not appear on 

operational tests and are either removed from the item pool or revised and fi eld 

tested again. None of the unique states currently analyze results by item; however, 

Marshall Islands and Virgin Islands are planning to do this in the future.

Figure 12. States that Analyze Assessment Results by Item for Students 

with Disabilities

Regular States

Yes

10%

No

50%

Don't 

know

22%

In 

progress

18%

Unique States

In 

progress

22%

No

56%

Don't 

know

22%

Only fi ve states currently 

analyze assessment results 

by item for students with 

disabilities.
25

Universally Designed Assessments 

The term “universally designed assessments” refers to assessments that are 

designed and developed from the beginning to be accessible and valid for the 

widest possible range of students who have access to standards-based instruction, 

including students with disabilities and students with limited English profi ciency. 

States are using several approaches to achieve universally designed assessments, 

including training item reviewers and establishing requirements for test contractors. For example, universal design is addressed in Missouri’s assessment contract 

and is a focus of its new grade level assessments. For more information about universally designed assessments, see NCEO’s Web site: http://education.umn.edu/

nceo/TopicAreas/UnivDesign/UnivDesign_topic.htm. 

Most of the regular states indicated that they used some approach to universally 

designed assessments, primarily having a disability representative on the 

assessment bias review committee (see Table 9). None of the special education 

personnel in the unique states were aware of the development of universal design 

approaches for their state assessments. 

Table 9. Assessment Development Areas Using Universal Design

Development Area Regular States

Disability representative on assessment bias review committee 22

Training of item reviewers 17

Requirements of test contractor 14

Training of item developers 14

Special education personnel do not have this information 11

Other 6

Note: All unique states indicated that they did not know or that nothing was taking place related to universal design in assessments.

The 22 regular states reported including a variety of disability representatives on 

their assessment bias or sensitivity review committees. These representatives are 

shown in Table 10.

All Disabilities Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, Utah

Vision Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia

Hearing Colorado, Florida, Kansas, New Jersey, New York, Texas, West Virginia

Learning Disability Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas

Physical Disability Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Texas

Developmental Disability Colorado, Mississippi, Texas

Table 10. Disability Representatives on Assessment Review Committees

Universally designed 

assessments can result 

in more valid inferences 

about the performance 

of all assessment 

participants.

Emerging Practices
26 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Computer-based State Assessments

About 20 states were in the process of developing computer-based assessments 

during 2003. All but four of these states included special education personnel 

in the development process (see Figure 13). None of the unique states were 

developing computer-based assessments.

About 20 states are in 

the process of developing 

computer-based state 

assessments.

Figure 13. Percent of States Developing Computer-based State 

Assessments

Regular States

Yes

32%

No

60%

Yes, but 

sp.ed. 

not 

involved

8%

Kentucky initiated the Web-based delivery of the Kentucky Core Content 

Assessment in an accessible format in spring of 2003 (see Figure 14 for a 

description of CATS Online). There are many important considerations in 

developing accessible computer-based tests for students with disabilities. Virginia’s 

development of a computer-based assessment system included a subcontract 

to examine disability-related issues. Colorado commented on a critical issue 

faced by states as they consider developing computer-based assessments: “Many 

districts in the rural areas of Colorado do not have the equipment to conduct 

computer-based assessments. Given the budgetary concerns of the state at this 

time, computer-based assessments are not an option.” For more information 

on this emerging priority, see NCEO’s report: Using Computer-based Tests with 

Students with Disabilities (http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/

Synthesis45.html).

Note: No unique states indicated that they were developing computer-based state assessments.
27

Figure 14. Kentucky’s CATS Online (Commonwealth Accountability Testing 

System)

Approximately 200 students with disabilities took Kentucky’s statewide 

assessment (CATS) online for the fi rst time in the spring of 2003. Eligibility 

for the computerized assessment requires: (1) student’s IEP or 504 plan 

requires use of a reader as an instructional and assessment accommodation; 

(2) student is using text or screen reader technology as a primary means 

of accessing printed material in the classroom on a routine basis; (3) 

student must have accessed and used the CATS Online Practice Area 

suffi ciently for familiarity with site navigation and use of a text or screen 

reader for computerized reading of the online assessment. For more 

information about this assessment, see: http// www.kentuckyschools.net/

KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/District+Support/

CATS+Online+Assessment. 

Emerging Practices
28 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Current and Emerging Issues

SEVERAL CURRENT AND EMERGING ISSUES WERE TARGETED IN THE 2003 SURVEY. THESE

included whether states (1) had graduation assessments, (2) had grade promotion 

assessments, (3) kept track of referrals to special education, (4) were using out-oflevel tests, or (5) faced legal challenges to assessment or accountability systems. 

The states indicating that they were using each of these approaches in 2003, or 

faced legal challenges, are shown in Table 11. 

State

High Stakes 

Graduation 

Assessment

Assessment 

Results Used 

for Grade 

Promotion

Data on 

Special 

Education 

Referrals

Out-of-Level 

or Levels 

Testing 

Options

Legal 

Challenges 

Alabama ■ ■

Alaska ■

Arkansas

Arizona ■

California ■ ■■

Colorado

Connecticut ■

Delaware ■ ■

Florida ■ ■

Georgia ■

Hawaii ■

Idaho ■

Illinois ■

Iowa ■ ■

Indiana ■ ■

Kansas ■

Kentucky

Louisiana ■ ■ ■ ■■

Maine

Maryland ■

Massachusetts ■ ■

Michigan ■

Minnesota ■ ■

Mississippi ■ ■

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska ■

Nevada ■ ■■

New Hampshire

New Jersey ■ ■■

Table 11. Issues Addressed by States
29

State

High Stakes 

Graduation 

Assessment

Assessment 

Results Used 

for Grade 

Promotion

Data on 

Special 

Education 

Referrals

Out-of-Level 

or Levels 

Testing

Options

Legal 

Challenges 

New Mexico ■

New York ■ ■

North Carolina ■■ ■

North Dakota

Ohio ■

Oklahoma

Oregon ■

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina ■ ■

South Dakota

Tennessee ■ ■

Texas ■ ■■■

Utah ■ ■

Vermont ■

Virginia

Washington ■ ■

West Virginia ■

Wisconsin ■

Wyoming ■

Total Regular 

States 23 6 12 17 7

American Samoa ■ ■

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs

Department of 

Defense

■

District of 

Columbia

■

Guam ■

Mariana Islands ■ ■■

Marshall Islands ■

Micronesia*

Palau ■

Puerto Rico*

U.S. Virgin Islands ■

Total Unique 

States 2 0 8 10

Table 11. Issues Addressed by States (continued)

* No response.

Current &Emerging Issues
30 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

High Stakes Graduation Assessments

Twenty-four states had an assessment that determined or will determine whether 

students earn a standard high school diploma (see Figure 15). In addition, three 

states are working on implementing a high school graduation assessment. Two 

unique states have a graduation assessment in place.

Regular States

Yes

48%

No

46%

Other

6%

Unique States

Yes

22%

No

56%

Other

22%

Figure 15. States with Graduation Assessments

Nearly half of the states 

have assessments that 

determine whether 

students can earn a 

standard high school 

diploma.

For the states with an assessment used to determine whether a student received a 

standard high school diploma, passing the assessment in the same way as all other 

students was the only option available to students with disabilities in seven regular 

states and two unique states (see Table 12). Seven states allowed students with 

disabilities to earn a standard diploma without passing the graduation assessment. 

A few states had a juried or performance assessment or an appeals process in place 

as an alternative to passing the paper and pencil assessment.
31

Table 12. Ways to Earn a Standard Diploma in States with Graduation 

Assessments

Ways to earn a standard diploma States

No options available other than passing regular graduation 

assessment 

Alabama

Louisiana

Maryland

Nevada

South Carolina

Tennessee

Washington

American Samoa

Mariana Islands

Students with disabilities can earn a standard diploma without 

passing the graduation assessment (e.g., alternate graduation route 

available)

Minnesota

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Texas

Utah

Juried or performance assessment Mississippi

Virginia

Appeals process that includes students with disabilities Georgia

Indiana

Massachusetts

Appeals process only for students with disabilities California

Other (e.g., waivers, GED exit option) Alaska

Florida

Current &Emerging Issues
32 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Assessment Results Used for Grade Promotion

Thirty-eight regular states and fi ve unique states do not use assessment results 

to determine whether students are promoted to the next grade (see Figure 16). 

Six states do use assessment results for grade promotion. For example, Florida 

uses a third grade reading test for promotion to fourth grade, with consideration 

of good cause exemptions. Louisiana administers high stakes tests in English 

Language Arts to 4th and 8th graders; these must be passed for a student who 

participates in the general assessment to be promoted.

Regular States

Yes

12%

No

76%

Other

12%

Unique States

No

56%

Other

44%

Figure 16. States that Use Assessment Results for Grade Promotion

Referrals for Special Education Services

During 2003, 12 regular states and 8 unique states collected information at the 

state level on the number of referrals for special education services (see Figure 

17). Several states reported that this information was collected at the district 

level. For example, Michigan commented, “We have a state-provided information 

system that districts may use. In this system there is a fi eld to collect referral dates, 

including date of referral and date of consent. The system is not required by the 

state but is offered as a convenience to the local and intermediate districts for 

documenting compliance information.”

Six regular states and seven unique states commented on the changes in the 

number of students referred for special education services. Across the 13 states, 

6 reported an increase in referrals, 2 reported a decrease in referrals, 3 reported 

no change, and 2 reported variable changes (ups and downs). Only one state 

reported specifi c numbers: The District of Columbia reported that in “2000-01 

the average monthly referrals for special education services were 218.83. In 2001-

02 the average monthly referrals dropped to 192.67. As of May, the 2002-03 

average monthly referrals were 224.22 (this average will adjust down somewhat 

over the summer).”
33

Figure 17. States with Special Education Referral Information

Regular States

Yes

24%

No

68%

Other

8%

Unique States

Yes

89%

No

11%

Legal Challenges

Seven state directors reported legal challenges to their assessment or accountability 

systems, specifi cally with respect to the participation or performance of students 

with disabilities (see Figure 18). Four states commented that these challenges 

were related to the use of assessment accommodations, and three were about high 

stakes promotion and graduation policies. None of these legal challenges occurred 

in unique states. 

Figure 18. States with Legal Challenges to the Assessment Participation or 

Performance of Students with Disabilities

Regular States

Yes

14%

No

84%

Don't 

Know

2%

Seven states reported 

legal challenges to 

the participation or 

performance of students 

with disabilities in 

their assessment or 

accountability systems.

Current &Emerging Issues

Note: No unique states reported legal challenges to the state assessment related to the participation or 

performance of students with disabilities.
34 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Gap Issues

For many years there have been concerns about whether there are students 

for whom neither the general state assessment nor the alternate assessment is 

appropriate. Questions have been raised about whether the problem was with 

the student or the assessment (see Gray Areas of Assessment Systems http://

education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis32.html).

When state directors were asked whether their assessment system was 

appropriately including all of their students, 22 regular states and 2 unique states 

indicated that their current assessment system was appropriate for all students. 

For example, Alaska’s director wrote, “We have a continuum of assessments that 

at present seem to serve our purpose.” Montana’s director wrote, “We believe 

that our current state assessment system is appropriate for all students. No 

exceptions.” 

However, 20 regular states did not agree, and another 8 did not respond or 

indicated that they were unable to tell at this time (see Table 13). Fourteen 

regular states described students achieving below grade level as those for whom 

the assessment system may be inappropriate. Colorado wrote, “The educational 

community has reported that there are students on IEPs for whom the general 

assessment (CSAP) is too diffi cult and the alternate (CSAPA) is inappropriate. 

However, it is unclear as to which students fi t this description and whether this 

view is based on expected versus actual student performance.” 

Four regular states and four unique states described students diffi cult to assess 

as those with the most severe cognitive disabilities. For example, Texas wrote, 

“Schools report being most challenged in fi nding and devising appropriate 

alternate assessment content and strategies for certain students in nursing care 

with degenerative neurological conditions, those in near coma states, and those 

with multiple sensory and physical disabilities who are functioning at very early 

pre-academic levels of development that are not easy to align to the state’s 

designated curriculum and state assessment content.” 

Students “In the Gap” Between General and 

Alternate Assessments

Number of 

Regular States

Number of 

Unique States

Students achieving below grade level 14 0

Students with the most signifi cant cognitive disabilities 4 4

English language learners 1 1

Students in custody of the state 1 0

Total 20 5

Unable to tell at this time or no response 8 2

Table 13. States with Students for Whom “Gap Issues” Exist*

*22 regular states and 2 unique states are not included in this table because they indicated that the assessment system is 

appropriate for all students.
35

Out-of-Level or Levels Testing Options 

The percentage of states that reported offering out-of-level, levels, or other 

below-grade testing options in 2003 was 36% of regular states overall, with 13 

regular states using out-of-level testing, and 5 regular states using levels testing 

(see Figure 19). One unique state also used out-of-level testing.

State directors expressed concern about using below grade testing options. One 

director stated: “It was anticipated that out-of-level testing would be used for 

both diagnostic and instructional purposes. Unfortunately, test results did not 

produce information that teachers felt was useful.” This director added that outof-level testing will be eliminated from next year’s assessment options for students 

with disabilities. Four states indicated that out-of-level testing or levels testing 

was being phased out as a testing option in the state, and one additional state 

indicated that it would possibly be eliminated. 

Figure 19. Out-of-Level or Levels Testing Options

0

11

89

10

26

64

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of States

Current &Emerging Issues

No Additional Testing 

Options

Out-of-Level Testing 

Option

Levels or Other 

Testing Options

Regular States

Unique States
36 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Emerging Issues

Each time NCEO surveys states, it asks about emerging issues. The most 

common issue was general concern about meeting the requirements of the No 

Child Left Behind Act and the inclusion of students with disabilities in measures 

of AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). Other issues identifi ed by at least four states 

(see Table 14) include: alternate assessment participation and scoring; graduation 

and dropout rates of students with disabilities; IEP team decision making and 

knowledge of state standards; use of accommodations, universally designed 

assessments, and computer-based assessments; and “gap” issues. 

Issues identifi ed by fewer than four states include: added burden for special 

educators, lack of instructional strategies to increase achievement, revisions in 

state standards, state level unique student identifi ers, and amount of testing time.

Theme Examples of State Comments

Meeting the requirements of the 

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

(10 states)

• Although most school level administrators and practitioners are in 

agreement with the spirit of the law, they are also concerned with 

the impact of the NCLB regulations. 

• How to meet the requirements of NCLB and state assessment and 

still preserve the integrity and validity of our current state assessment system. 

• Diffi cult to implement the requirements of NCLB as they relate 

to attaining profi cient level on grade level assessments for students 

with disabilities taking the regular statewide assessment.

Alternate assessment participation and scoring

(8 states)

• Strengthening the alternate assessment process, particularly for 

students with low incidence disabilities and providing guidelines 

regarding interpreting results for state reporting system.

• Growing numbers of students recommended for participation in 

the alternate assessments.

• Alternate Assessment continues to be a challenge. School staff 

believe that we need to focus on functional curriculum rather than 

standards-based instruction. 

Graduation and dropout rates of 

students with disabilities 

(6 states)

• This is the fi rst year for “high stakes” on graduation. We do not yet 

know if the high stakes will impact our dropout rate or will result in 

less positive outcomes for students with disabilities. 

• At this time, there is no other alternative diploma other than the 

Special Education Diploma or a Certifi cate of Attendance. There 

are many bright students with disabilities who will not be able to 

continue with their education due to not getting a regular diploma.

• Concerns related to students with disabilities who may not become profi cient on grade level state standards or may not be able to 

earn credits for graduation.

IEP team decision making and 

knowledge of state standards

(5 states)

• Getting the special education teachers and administrators familiar 

with the Curriculum Framework and that it is for ALL students, not 

just general education students. 

• Still a real issue with training teachers and IEP Teams how to determine appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. 

• Getting IEP Teams to understand how to provide true access to the 

general education curriculum.

Table 14. Emerging Issues
37

Table 14. Emerging Issues (continued)

Theme Examples of State Comments

Use of accommodations, universally designed assessments, and 

computer-based assessments

(5 states)

• Universal design as it applies to test development.

• Accommodations guidance and need to revisit/review more frequently.

• The introduction of the computerized assessment that is being 

designed now will require staff development. 

Gap issues

(4 states)

• Assessing students who are not appropriate to participate in the 

regular assessments or the alternate. 

• Concern for students who are not appropriate for alternate but 

cannot meet state standards particularly in light of NCLB.

Current &Emerging Issues
38 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Preferred Forms of Technical 

Assistance

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PREFERENCES OF STATES ARE SHOWN IN FIGURE 20. THE MOST

highly preferred form of technical assistance in 2003 was information via the 

Internet. Conference calls also were an important form of technical assistance. 

Nearly all of the unique states selected descriptions of assessment practices in 

other states and information available via the Internet.

Figure 20. Preferred Forms of Technical Assistance

Information on Internet

Descriptions of assessments in other states

Conference calls

Consultation and review of state materials

Awareness materials

Self-review materials

Small group "clinics"

Individual consultation at meetings

Regular States

Unique States

33

22

44

89

89

30

42

44

46

46

54

68

56

56

56

58

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of States