i

2005 State

Special

Education

Outcomes

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

provided the source is cited as:

Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Altman, J. R. (2005). 2005 State special education outcomes: 

Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational 

Outcomes. 

Steps Forward in a 

Decade of Change
ii NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

The Mission of the National Center on 

Educational Outcomes

NCEO Staff

Deb Albus

Christopher Johnstone

Jane Krentz

Kristi Liu

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 Officers (CCSSO). NCEO provides national 

leadership in assisting state and local education agencies in their development of 

policies and practices that encourage and support the participation of students 

with disabilities in accountability 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, presentations, 

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, Office of Special 

Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Additional support for 

targeted projects, including those on limited English proficient students, is 

provided by other federal and state agencies. The Center is affiliated with the 

Institute on Community Integration in the College of Education and Human 

Development, University of Minnesota. Opinions or points of view expressed 

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

Education or the Offices 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://www.nceo.info

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

November, 2005
iii Acknowledgments

WITH THE COLLECTIVE EFFORTS OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, WE ARE

able to report on the activities of all 50 states and six 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 to make 

public the trends and issues facing states, as well as the innovations states are 

using to meet the demands of Federal legislation. 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:

• Dave Egnor and Lou Danielson, of the Office of Special Education Programs 

in the U.S. Department of Education (OSEP);

• David Malouf, formerly with OSEP, now with the Institute of Education 

Science 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 Khoa Vang, student assistant.

2005 State Special Education Outcomes was prepared by Sandra Thompson, 

Christopher Johnstone, Martha Thurlow, and Jason Altman.

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 Toomey

FLORIDA

 Bambi Lockman

GEORGIA

 Marlene Bryar

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 Thompson

MINNESOTA

 Norena Hale

 

MISSISSIPPI

 Melody Bounds

 

MISSOURI

 Melodie Friedebach

MONTANA

 Robert Runkel

NEBRASKA

 Gary Sherman

NEVADA

 Frankie McCabe

 

NEW HAMPSHIRE

 Virginia O’Brien Irwin

NEW JERSEY

 Barbara Gantwerk

NEW MEXICO

 Steve Oldroydh

NEW YORK

 Rebecca Cort

NORTH CAROLINA

 Mary Watson

NORTH DAKOTA

 Robert Rutten

OHIO

 Mike Armstrong

OKLAHOMA

 Misty Kimbrough

OREGON

 Nancy Latini

PENNSYLVANIA

 Linda Rhen

RHODE ISLAND

 Thomas DiPaola

SOUTH CAROLINA

 Susan DuRant

SOUTH DAKOTA

 Michelle Powers

 

TENNESSEE

 Joseph Fisher

TEXAS

 Eugene Lenz

UTAH

 Karl Wilson

 

VERMONT

 Karin Edwards

VIRGINIA

 Doug Cox

WASHINGTON

 Doug Gill

WEST VIRGINIA

 Lynn Boyer

WISCONSIN

 Stephanie Petska

WYOMING

 Nance Shelsta

AMERICAN SAMOA

 Moeolo Vaatausili

BUREAU OF INDIAN 

AFFAIRS

 Gloria Yepa

DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE

 Lorie Sebestyen 

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

 Ray Bryant

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

 Carrie S. Johns

These were the state directors of special education in 

May 2005 when NCEO 

verified the survey.
v

THIS REPORT SUMMARIZES THE TENTH 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 six 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 during standards-based reform.

States continue to work on the participation of students with disabilities in state 

assessments. The calculation of participation rates is based on different denominators in different states. Most states use either the number of students with disabilities enrolled within a month of the test or the number of students with disabilities 

counted on test day, yet some still use the number of students tested or the enrollment on December 1. Use of accommodations is also documented in some way 

by every state.

The report contains good news: the number of students with disabilities achieving proficiency on state accountability tests is increasing. Most states now have at 

least three years of trend data and enough evaluation data to be able to attribute 

increased proficiency to several positive efforts by schools and districts. There have 

been many changes during the past two years as increasing numbers of students 

receive the instruction they need to meet grade level proficiency.

When states were asked which factors contributed to positive trends found in the 

survey, at least half of the states credited the following six factors:

• Clearly communicated participation policy

• Better alignment of IEPs with standards

• Improved professional development

• Development and provision of accommodation guidelines and training

• Increased access to standards-based instruction

• Improved data collection

Updates on alternate assessments show continued evolution in various aspects, 

from the approach itself, to the content, setting of standards, and the scoring 

criteria that are used. Areas of emerging practice include for a few states item 

analyses and disaggregating assessment results by English language learners. For 

about half the states, emerging practice includes field testing in alternate formats 

and disaggregating assessment results by disability category. Nearly all of the states 

are conducting further work in the area of universally designed assessments.

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
v

i NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 
vii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Overview of 2005 Survey.............................................................................................1

Participation and Performance ....................................................................................2

 Rate Calculation.........................................................................................................3

 Performance Trends ...................................................................................................4

 

Accommodations ..........................................................................................................7

 

Alternate Assessments.................................................................................................10

 Alternate Assessment Approach ................................................................................11

 Alternate Assessment Content ..................................................................................12

 Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors................................................12

 Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria .......................................................................13

 Alternate Assessment Standard-setting ......................................................................13

 Alternate Assessment Development/Revision ...........................................................16

Emerging Practices .....................................................................................................17

 Field Testing ............................................................................................................17

 Item Analysis............................................................................................................17

 Disaggregating Assessment Results ...........................................................................17

 Universally Designed Assessments: General Issues and RFPs .....................................17

 Universally Designed Assessments: Item Review Process ...........................................20

 Computer-based Large-scale State Assessments.........................................................21

Current and Emerging Issues.....................................................................................23

Table of Contents
viii NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

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

Preferred Forms of Technical Assistance ...................................................................26

References ...................................................................................................................27

Appendix A: Working Definitions of Students with the “Most Significant 

 Cognitive Disabilities” ...........................................................................................29

Appendix B: Examples of Current and Emerging Issues ..........................................35
1

THIS REPORT MARKS THE TENTH TIME OVER THE PAST 14 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. As this survey reached final preparation, the government reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA). As in 1997, IDEA 2004 requires states to report the number of students with disabilities who participate in state assessments. Likewise, the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires the reporting of participation rates by 

subgroup, including students with disabilities.

We are able to report, for the first time, that the number of students with disabilities achieving proficiency on state tests for accountability is improving. Most states 

now have at least three years of performance data and enough evaluation data to 

be able to attribute increased proficiency to several positive efforts by schools and 

districts. This report begins with descriptions of trends in participation and performance and then, as in past years, takes a careful look at accommodations use, 

alternate assessment, emerging practices and issues, and technical assistance needs. 

Readers will see many changes during the past two years as increasing numbers of 

students receive the instruction they need to meet grade level proficiency and as 

states and districts continue to strive to meet goals for adequate yearly progress 

(AYP) as required by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. One of the greatest 

improvements is the increased trend toward proficiency on state assessments by 

students with disabilities. At least half of the states attribute these positive trends 

to six factors:

• Clearly communicated participation policy

• Better alignment of IEPs with standards

• Improved professional development

• Development and provision of accommodations guidelines and training

• Increased access to standards-based instruction

• Improved data collection

There is no doubt that difficult issues remain, but progress over the past two years 

has been strong and positive, providing hope for the same in the future.

Overview of 2005 Survey

Overview

We are able to report, for 

the first time, that the 

number of students with 

disabilities achieving 

proficiency on state tests 

for accountability is 

improving.
2 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Participation and Performance

THE 2004 INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT REQUIRES

states to report the number of students with disabilities who participate in state 

assessments. Likewise, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires 

the reporting of participation rates by subgroup, including students with disabilities. In this survey, NCEO asked states how students were included in 2003-2004 

state assessment accountability reports for NCLB.

States responded that they include students with disabilities in their participation 

reports in different ways, depending on whether they are: students who do not 

participate in state assessments in any way (e.g., absent on test day, parent refusal, 

hospitalized); students who attended (sat for) assessments, but did not complete 

enough items to score; students who used invalid accommodations (e.g., nonstandard, modifications); or students who tested at a lower grade than their level 

of enrollment. Table 1 demonstrates the ways in which states count students in 

these categories.

The majority of states (n=35, 70%) do not count students who did not participate 

in the state assessment at all, and give them no score. Other states count non-participating students but give them no score (n=4, 8%), or count students as participants and score them at the lowest proficiency level or a score of zero (n=7, 14%).

Reporting practices differ among states for students who attended (sat for) an 

assessment but did not complete enough items to score. Twenty-one states count 

students as participants and score them at the lowest proficiency level or give 

them a score of zero (42%), and 17 states count these students as participants and 

give them no score (34%). 

Students who use accommodations defined as “invalid” (e.g., read aloud accommodation on a reading test, calculator accommodation on a portion of a mathematics test that does not allow calculators) are also counted in varied ways. States 

most often count these students as participants but give them no score (n=7, 

14%), or a score of zero or the lowest proficiency level (n=17, 34%). Twelve state 

directors (24%) report that their state does not allow “invalid” accommodations; 

therefore, they do not consider reporting issues. Other states noted that students 

who use invalid accommodations are not counted as participants (n=8, 16%). 

A practice in some states is to test students on content outside of their current 

grade level. Twenty-five states (50%) report that they currently allow out-of-level 

testing. Among states that do allow students to be tested at a grade level lower 

than their grade of enrollment, approximately half count students as participants 

and give a score of zero or the lowest proficiency level (n=11, 22%). Of the rest, 

most states count the earned score as valid (n=10, 20%). Unique states count 

students in proportions similar to those of regular states.

Participation rates differentially reflect students 

who do not participate in 

any way, students who do 

not complete the assessment, students who use 

invalid accommodations, 

and students who tested at 

a grade lower than their 

level of enrollment.
3

Nineteen states calculate 

participation rate as the 

number of students with 

disabilities divided by the 

total number of students 

enrolled within a month 

of the test administration.

Table 1: Reporting Practices for Counting Students as Assessment Participants

Not 

Counted as 

Participants, 

Received No 

Score

Counted as 

Participants, 

Received No 

Score

Counted as 

Participants, 

Received 

Score of 

Zero or 

Lowest 

Proficiency 

Level

Earned 

Score is 

Counted 

as Valid Other

Students who did not 

participate in state 

assessments in any way 

(e.g., absent on test 

day, parent refusal)

Regular 

States

35 4 7 0 3

Unique 

States

3 0 0 0 3

Students who attended 

(sat for) assessment, 

but did not complete 

enough items to score

Regular 

States

6 17 21 5 1

Unique 

States

0 1 1 1 3

Students who used invalid accommodations 

(e.g., non-standard, 

modifications)

Regular 

States

8 7 17 6 12

Unique 

States

0 1 2 0 3

Students who tested 

at a lower grade than 

their level of enrollment

Regular 

States

2 2 11 10 24

Unique 

States

0 0 1 1 2

Rate Calculation

In 2005, NCEO asked state directors how they determine the participation rates 

for students with disabilities in state assessments. The answers reflecting state 

methods for counting participation are shown in Figure 1. A number of states 

(n=19, 38%) take the number of students with disabilities tested divided by the 

total number of students enrolled within a month of the test. However, responses 

to this question varied widely, representing the diversity of approaches that states 

use to report participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. 

Some states arrive at a participation rate by dividing the number of students tested 

by the number of students counted on test day (n=11, 22%), while others divide 

valid test results by the number of students tested (n=7, 14%), and others divide 

the number of students tested by the number of students enrolled on December 

1 (n=3, 6%). Unique states also use a variety of formulae for calculating participation rates. 

Nine states do not use any of the formulae for calculating participation rates that 

were provided as prompts in the NCEO survey. In these states, directors chose 

“other” as a survey response, and reported a number of ways participation rates 

are determined. Within this category, states vary in how to count the number of 

students tested (the numerator), and the total number of students (the denominaParticipation and Performance
4 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

tor). For example, one state reports the number of students with disabilities with 

valid test results divided by the number of students reported by the December 1 

special education child counts. Another state takes the number of test takers with 

disabilities tested divided by the number of students with disabilities enrolled 

as of the 4th Friday in September of that school year. Finally, one state director 

confidently reports that the participation rate is always 100 percent because all 

students are tested.

Performance Trends 

In 2003, NCEO asked state directors about the consequences of inclusive assessment and accountability. This year we took the most common responses from 

that question and an open-ended question on trends in achievement and asked 

new questions. Did states have data showing trends over the past three years 

in the achievement of students with disabilities on state tests? If they did have 

trend data, to what did they attribute the trends? Nearly all states are now able to 

document trends across at least three years in the state assessment performance of 

students with disabilities (n=44, 88%). In 2005, not one director in a regular state 

reported a decrease in the percent of students with disabilities achieving proficiency, though one state reported an increase in proficiency in some areas and a 

decrease in others. Figure 2 shows the results. Half of the unique states surveyed 

could not document trend data at the current time. Two unique states reported 

an increase in the number of students achieving proficiency.

Several state directors submitted comments on current trends in assessment. One 

director stated, “Fluctuations exist across all five tests and across the grade levels 

Tables and Figures 092605 

2

Figure 1: Regular and Unique State Participation Rate Formulae for Students with Disabilities 

19

11

7

3

1

9

0

0

2

0

4

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Students tested divided by students counted within one

month of test

Students tested divided by students counted on test day

Valid test results divided by students tested

Students tested divided by students counted on Dec. 1

Unable to determine 

Other

Number of Regular States

Regular Unique

Figure 1. Regular and Unique State Participation Rate Formulae for Students with Disabilities

Students tested divided by students counted within one 

month of test

Students tested divided by students counted on test day

Valid test results divided by students tested

Students tested divided by students counted on Dec. 1

Unable to determine

Other

Nearly all states are able 

to document performance 

trends across at least three 

years, and not one of the 

directors in the regular 

states reported a decrease 

in percent of students 

with disabilities achieving 

proficiency.
5

tested.” According to another state director, “The trend is more toward improved 

performance scores overall; the numbers of students achieving proficiency, although increasing a little, remains low.” 

As noted in previous NCEO Surveys of State Directors of Special Education 

(Thompson & Thurlow, 2001, 2003), inclusive assessment and accountability are 

critical areas of information for states. As shown in Figure 3, at least half of the 

states attributed positive trends in performance to each of these six factors:

• Clearly communicated participation policy (n=36, 72%)

• Better alignment of IEPs with standards (n=32, 64%)

• Improved professional development (n=28, 56%)

• Development and provision of accommodations guidelines and training 

(n=27, 54%)

• Increased access to standards-based instruction (n=26, 52%)

• Improved data collection (n=26, 52%)

In addition to the attributes listed in Figure 3, state directors made these comments: 

“We are in the early stage of development. With implementation 

of a new [statewide] test, we will need to re-examine this question 

as we observe emerging patterns under new test program. Most of 

[the] current change is probably due to increasing public awareness of expectation and consequences.”

 “Concurrent to general trends in improved student achievement, 

most of our students with disabilities are served in general education environments. Achievement has generally improved for all 

students.”

Tables and Figures 092605 

3

Figure 2: Trends in Achievement for Students with Disabilities (Number of Regular States) 

Increase

84%

Decrease

0%

No Change

2%

Trend Data Not 

Available

12% Other

2%

Figure 2. Trends in Achievement for Students with Disabilities (Percentage 

of Regular States)

Participation and Performance

Positive trends in performance are attributed 

to participation policy, 

alignment of IEPs to standards, professional development, accommodations 

guidelines and training, 

access to standards-based 

instruction, and improved 

data collection.
6 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Fifteen state directors indicated that avoidance of NCLB consequences was partially responsible for current trends (30%). Far fewer state directors selected negative attributes than positive. Four state directors expressed concern that students 

with disabilities may not be able to reach proficiency on a state’s general assessments (8%).

Figure 3. Perceived Causes of Achievement Trends

Tables and Figures 092605 

Figure 3: Perceived Causes of Achievement Trends 

36

32

28

27

26

26

21

21

20

16

16

15

15

14

8

6

2

4

3

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Clearly communicated participation policy

Alignment of IEPs with standards

Improved professional development

Development of accommodations guidelines and training

Improved data collection

Increased access to standards-based instruction

Increased assessment participation rates

Use of student and staff data for program improvement

Use of State Improvement Grant or General Supervision

Enhancement Grant

Grade level achievement requirements

Better defined public reporting requirements

Increased use of research-based practices

Avoid NCLB consequences

Increased use of specialized reading and math programs

Use of techical assistance organizations

Development of more challenging standards

Use of universally designed assessments

Decreased acheivement due to more students taking general

assessments

Attendance difficulties associatied with testing over multiple days

Lack of access to general curriculum

Number of Regular States

Clearly communicated participation policy

Alignment of IEPs with standards

Improved professional development

Development of accommodations guidelines and training

Improved data collection

Increased access to standards-based instruction

Increased assessment participation rates

Use of student and staff data for program improvement

Use of State Improvement Grant or General Supervision 

Enhancement Grant

Grade level achievement requirements

Better defined public reporting requirements

Increased use of research-based practices

Avoid NCLB consequences

Increased use of specialized reading and math programs

Use of technical assistance organizations

Development of more challenging standards

Use of universally designed assessments

Decreased achievement due to more students taking 

general assessments

Attendance difficulties associated with testing over 

multiple days

Lack of access to general curriculum 
7

Accommodations

ALL STATES NOW DOCUMENT ACCOMMODATIONS USE ON TEST DAY, ALTHOUGH WITH

different levels of specificity. This is a major change in the past few years. In the 

report, 2001 State Special Education Outcomes, 21 states reported that they did

not document the use of accommodations on state assessments at the state level. 

This number decreased to three states in 2003. 

Table 2 shows the ways that states document accommodation use in 2005. Approximately half of the regular states (n=26, 52%) and fewer of the unique states 

(n=2, 18%) mark specific accommodations on the test or response form, whereas 

only 16% of the regular states and no unique states mark only “standard” or 

“nonstandard.” This is a contrast to 2003 results, where 15 states (30%) indicated 

they documented accommodations in the dichotomous (standard/nonstandard) 

form.

All states report documenting accommodations 

use on test day.

Accommodations
8 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Table 2. State Documentation of Assessment Accommodations Use 

State

Test/Response 

Form Has Space 

to Mark Specific 

Accommodations

Test/Response 

Form Has Space to 

Mark Non-Specific 

Accommodations

Test/Response 

Form Has Space 

to Mark Standard 

or Non-Standard 

Accommodations

Local Documentation of 

Use Only Other

Alabama ■

Alaska ■

Arizona ■

Arkansas ■

California ■

Colorado ■

Connecticut ■

Delaware ■

Florida ■

Georgia ■

Hawaii ■

Idaho ■

Illinois ■

Indiana ■

Iowa ■

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 ■
9

* Did not complete survey.

** Is not required to collect or report data.

State

Test/Response 

Form Has Space 

to Mark Specific 

Accommodations

Test/Response 

Form Has Space to 

Mark Non-Specific 

Accommodations

Test/Response 

Form Has Space 

to Mark Standard 

or Non-Standard 

Accommodations

Local Documentation of 

Use Only Other

Pennsylvania ■

Rhode Island ■

South Carolina ■

South Dakota ■

Tennessee ■

Texas ■

Utah ■

Vermont ■

Virginia ■

Washington ■

West Virginia ■

Wisconsin ■

Wyoming ■

Total Regular 

States 26 12 8 2 2

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 0 1 1

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

Accommodations
10 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Alternate Assessments

NCEO BEGAN TRACKING ALTERNATE ASSESSMENTS IN 1997, AND STATES WERE

required to start implementing them in 2000. IDEA 2004 describes alternate 

assessments based on alternate achievement standards as assessments for students 

unable to participate in regular state or district-wide assessments because they are 

students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Most states (n=45, 90%) offer an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Ten states (20%) indicate they also offer an alternate assessment 

based on grade-level achievement standards.

Almost half of the states (22, 44%) in the U.S. have changed their assessment participation policies/guidelines since the December 9, 2003 regulation on alternate 

assessments based on alternate achievement standards. One state reported that the 

alternate assessment is a “work in progress, as it appears our extended indicators 

may still not meet the federal requirements.”

Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards are intended for 

students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. We asked states how they 

would define this population of students and found that each state had its own 

distinct definition. For example, New Hampshire looks for the following three 

criteria: 

1. The student has an IEP.

2. Evidence that the student’s demonstrated cognitive ability and adaptive 

behavioral skills: prevent him/her from demonstrating achievement of the 

proficiency standards described in the NH Curriculum Frameworks, even 

with appropriate accommodations, and require individualized instruction 

in multiple settings (school, work, home and community environments) to 

acquire, generalize, and transfer skills necessary for functional application.

3. There is historical data (current and longitudinal across multiple settings) 

that confirms the individual student criteria listed above.

Kentucky uses policy from state regulation in determining what qualifies a student 

as one with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Wyoming defines a student 

with the most significant cognitive disabilities as one with “significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive 

behavior and manifested during the developmental period that adversely affects a 

child’s educational performance.” The Department of Defense defines these students as “students with an identified moderate to profound intellectual disability 

as measured on a standardized IQ assessment.” 

Forty-five regular states 

offer an alternate assessment based on alternate 

achievement standards.
11

These are some of the varied definitions of students with the “most significant 

cognitive disabilities” that states use to guide participation in alternate assessments. Appendix A provides the definitions used by all the regular and unique 

states able to provide this information. Several states were not able to provide 

definitions.

Alternate Assessment Approach

The alternate assessment approaches states use are shown in Table 3. Similar to 

results from our 2003 survey, half of the regular states indicated that they use a 

portfolio or body of evidence approach in their alternate assessments for students 

with the most significant cognitive disabilities (n=25, 50%). The number of 

states using a portfolio or body of evidence approach has stayed about the same 

since 2001 after decreasing from 28 states in 1999. States listed under “other” 

allow local selection of an alternate assessment approach or require a performance 

assessment. Many more states are in the process of developing or revising their 

alternate assessment during 2005 than in the past (n=8, 16%). Only four unique 

states’ responses were available, and they were spread among alternate assessment 

approaches. 

Year

Portfolio or Body 

of Evidence

Rating Scale or 

Checklist IEP Analysis Other

In Development/ Revision

Regular States

1999 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%)

2005* 25 (50%)** 7 (14%)*** 2 (4%) 7 (14%) 8 (16%)

Unique States

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

2005 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) 0 (0%) 1 (11%)

*One state has not developed any statewide alternate assessment approaches.

**Of these 25 states, 13 use a standardized set of performance/events/tasks/skills.

***Of these 7 states, 3 require the submission of student work.

Table 3. Alternate Assessment Approaches 2000-2005

It may be that the traditional way of describing alternate assessment approaches 

is no longer the best because there is considerable overlap across approaches that 

states take. For example, of the 25 states using portfolio (body of evidence) assessments in 2005, 13 states use a standardized set of performance events, tasks, or 

skills. Three of the seven states using a rating scale of performance on a standardized set of events, tasks, or skills require the submission of a body of evidence.

Alternate Assessments
12 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Alternate Assessment Content 

States were asked to indicate the type of content that was the focus of the alternate assessment (see Figure 4). Possible response options were greater than they 

had been in 2003. In 2005, 10 states (20%) are using grade-level content while 

21 states (40%) use expanded/extended content standards. Nearly one-fourth 

of states (n=10, 20%) are in the process of developing or revising their alternate 

assessment. In addition, six state directors marked the “other” choice in 2005 

(12%), and provided state-specific information. For example, one state director 

said, “Functional skills/curriculum are aligned to state/district academic standards.” Another said, “Alternate grade expectations are aligned to state standards, 

and linked to research-based set of learning outcomes for students with significant 

cognitive disabilities.”

Of the six unique states that responded to this year’s survey, five responded to this 

question. Two unique states are currently using grade-level content standards.

Figure 4. Types of Alternate Assessment Content

Extended/expanded state/district academic content 

standards

Grade level state/district academic content standards or 

grade level expectations

State/district academic standards at one or more grade 

levels below the student's current grade

A combination of state/district academic standards and 

functional skills not aligned to standards

IEP teams determine alternate assessment content for 

each student

Currently revising

Other

8

e Assessment Content 

21

10

1

1

1

10

6

1

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 

e/district academic

ndards

t academic content

vel expectations

rds at one or more

nts current grade

district academic

skills not aligned to

s

ernate assessment

h student

Currently Revising

Other

Number of States

Regular Unique

Figure 4. Types of Alternate Assessment Content 

21

10

1

1

1

10

6

1

2

0

0

2

0

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Extended/expanded state/district academic content

standards

Grade level state/district academic content standards or

grade level expectations

State/district academic standards at one or more grade

levels below the students current grade

A combination of state/district academic standards and

functional skills not aligned to standards

IEP teams determine alternate assessment content for

each student

Currently Revising

Other

Number of States

Regular Unique

Figure 4. Types of Alternate Assessment Content 

21

10

1

1

1

10

6

1

2

0

0

2

0

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Extended/expanded state/district academic content

standards

Grade level state/district academic content standards or

grade level expectations

State/district academic standards at one or more grade

levels below the students current grade

A combination of state/district academic standards and

functional skills not aligned to standards

IEP teams determine alternate assessment content for

each student

Currently Revising

Other

Number of States

Regular Unique

Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors

State assessments generally have achievement level descriptors such as below basic, 

basic, proficient, and advanced. Some states select different achievement level descriptors for their alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. 

Table 4 shows examples of these different descriptors.
13

Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria

Most states (n=37, 74%) currently place their scoring criteria for the alternate 

assessment within some type of rubric. However, between 2003 and 2005 the 

number of states assigning points on a rating scale doubled (currently, n=16, 

32%), and seven more states began scoring number of items correct on alternate 

assessments (n=12, 24%) (see Table 5). According to state comments, scoring 

criteria can be a direct measure of student achievement (student criteria); may 

reflect necessary system conditions essential for student success (system criteria); 

or can be a combination of student achievement seen within the context of 

system-provided supports (combination). 

Table 4. Examples of Alternate Assessment Achievement Level 

Alternate Assessment Achievement Level Descriptors

AR Independent, Functional Independent, Supported Independent, Emergent, Non-Evident

CO Novice, Developing, Emerging, Explorative, Exploring, Inconclusive

GA Initial, Emerging, Progressing, Functional

IL Attempting, Emerging, Progressing, Attaining

NM Insufficient Data, Beginning Step, Nearing Proficiency, Proficient, Advanced

Table 5. Scoring Criteria for Alternate Assessment Responses 2003-2005

Year Rubric

Points Assigned 

on a Rating Scale

Number of 

Items 

Correct

Reading 

Rate or 

Accuracy

Regular States

2003 40 (80%) 8 (16%) 5 (10%) 2 (4%)

2005 37 (74%) 16 (32%) 12 (24%) 4 (8%)

As demonstrated in Figure 5, there is great variation in the specific scoring criteria 

in states that use rubrics. Skill/competence and level of assistance are the most 

frequently used scoring criteria. This variation is also evident among unique states. 

Despite the differences in approaches, rubrics are still the most common approach 

for scoring a student’s skill/competence on a task or level of assistance needed to 

complete a task.

Alternate Assessment Standard-setting

A standard-setting process defines what scores mean. Usually this involves identifying “cut scores” that separate different levels of achievement. Standard-setting 

methods for alternate assessments differ across states. As shown in Figure 6, more 

than half of the regular states (n=26, 52%) indicate that they use a formal standard-setting process for their alternate assessments.

Alternate Assessments

Scoring criteria based on 

the use of assigned points 

on a rating scale doubled 

for 2003 to 2005, yet most 

states still use a rubric for 

their scoring criteria.
14 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Figure 5. Outcomes Measured by Rubrics on Alternate Assessments

Tables and Figures 092605 

Figure 5: Outcomes Measured by Rubrics on Alternate Assessments 

25

25

23

20

18

15

13

10

10

9

7

7

0 10 20 30 40 50

Skill/Competence

Level of Assistance

Degree of Progress

Number/Variety of Settings

Alignment with Academic Content Standards

Ability to Generalize

Appropriateness

Staff Support

Social Relationships

Self Determination

Participation in General Education Settings

Support

Number of Regular States

Tables and Figures 092605 

Figure 6: States with Formal Standard-setting Processes for Alternate Assessment 

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

States Translating Alternate Assessment Scores into 

Alternate Achievement Levels 

Formal Standard setting process (n=26) 

Informal Standard setting process (n=3) 

Developing a Standard setting process (n=5) 

Developing / Revising alternate assessment (n=13) 

Other (n=1) 

No Standard setting process (n=2) 

Figure 6. States with Formal Standard-setting Processes for Alternate 

Assessment

Formal Standard-setting Process (n=26)

Informal Standard-setting Process (n=3)

Developing a Standard-setting Process (n=5)

Developing / Revising Alternate Assessment (n=13)

No Standard-setting Process (n=2)

Other (n=1)

More than half of the 

states now use formal 

standard-setting processes 

for their alternate 

assessments.
15

States also indicated the types of standard-setting processes they use. Table 6 

describes the most commonly used standard-setting processes for alternate assessments and lists the number of states that use them. Most states use a body of 

work approach (n=11, 22%), reasoned judgment (n=10, 20%), or bookmarking/

item mapping (n=9, 18%). A few states selected more than one technique for 

standard setting. One unique state responded that it performs standard-setting, 

but did not select a technique.

Table 6. Standard-setting Techniques that States Apply to Alternate 

Assessments*

Technique Description** 2003 2005

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.

2

AL, DE, KY,

MA, NC, NM,

NV, OH, SD,

VA, VT

______________

11

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. 15

AZ, DE, HI,

IL, IN, MA,

MS, SD,

WI, WV

______________

10

Bookmarking 

or Item 

Mapping

Standard-setters mark the spot in a specially constructed 

test booklet (arranged in order of item difficulty) where a 

desired percentage of minimally proficient (or advanced) 

students would pass the item; or, standard-setters mark 

where the difference in performance of the proficient and 

advanced student on an exercise is a desired minimum 

percentage of students.

6

AZ, CA, CO,

ID, KY, MD,

MT, OR, SC

______________

9

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.

3

AK, MA, MD

NV, SD

______________

5

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. 1

KY, MA, NV

SD, VT

______________

5

Total 27 40

*Includes only states that have a formal standard setting process.

**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
16 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Alternate Assessment Development/Revision 

For each of the areas of alternate assessments several states reported that they are 

developing or revising that area. Table 7 shows the number of states with areas in 

revision or development.

Area Number of Regular States

Approach 8

Content 10

Standard-setting 13

Scoring Criteria 17

Table 7. States Revising or Developing Specific Areas of an Alternate 

Assessment
17

Emerging Practices

THE 2005 SURVEY ASKED STATES ABOUT SEVERAL EMERGING PRACTICES, SPECIFICALLY TO

indicate whether they were addressing each issue. Issues that were reported in the 

2003 survey were item analysis, universally designed assessments, and computerbased state assessments. In the 2005 survey, respondents also answered questions 

about field testing, disaggregating assessment results, and RFPs and item review 

process (for universally designed assessments).

Field Testing

In a new survey item added this year, more than one-third of state directors indicated they are field testing potential items for use in their large-scale assessments 

in both standard formats and accommodated formats such as braille, large print, 

audio tape, and computer (n=20, 40%) (see Table 8). Although there are no data 

from previous years, these baseline data indicate that more than one-third of states 

recognize the potential issues that may arise with accommodated formats and are 

taking appropriate steps to examine issues early in the testing cycle (i.e., in field 

testing). Two unique states currently field test items in alternative formats (see 

Table 8).

Item Analysis

Eleven states and one unique state examine item level data (see Table 8). Item 

level analyses, such as differential item functioning (DIF) analyses, demonstrate 

whether test items function differently for students with disabilities compared to 

their non-disabled peers. Knowledge about item analysis appears to be growing. 

In 2003, nearly one-fourth of state directors responded that they did not know 

whether their state analyzed results by item for students with disabilities.

Disaggregating Assessment Results 

Twenty-one states (42%) disaggregate assessment results by primary disability (see 

Table 8). Several other states commented that this is not possible in all disability 

areas due to small group sizes, such as visual impairment or hearing impairment.

States are also beginning to disaggregate data for English language learners. 

Twelve regular states (24%) and four unique states currently disaggregate assessment data by language groups. Among these states, eight states and one unique 

state disaggregate data by both language group and disability.

Universally Designed Assessments: General Issues and 

RFPs

The term “universally designed assessments” refers to assessments designed from 

the beginning to be accessible and valid for the widest possible range of students, 

Emerging Practices

Emerging assessment 

analysis practices for 

students with disabilities 

include field testing in 

alternate formats, item 

analysis for students with 

disabilities, disaggregated 

results by disability and 

language group, and 

universally designed 

assessments.
18 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Table 8. States Addressing Emerging Practices

State

Field 

Testing

Item 

Analysis

Disaggregation 

by Primary 

Disability

Disaggregation 

for English 

Language 

Learners

Universal 

Design

Alabama ■ ■ ■

Alaska ■ ■ ■ ■

Arizona ■

Arkansas ■ ■

California ■ ■ ■ ■

Colorado ■ ■ ■

Connecticut ■

Delaware ■ ■

Florida ■ ■ ■

Georgia ■ ■ ■ ■

Hawaii ■ ■ ■ ■

Idaho ■ ■

Illinois ■ ■ ■

Indiana ■ ■ ■ ■

Iowa ■

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 ■ ■
19

Table 8. States Addressing Emerging Practices (continued)

State

Field 

Testing

Item 

Analysis

Disaggregation 

by Primary 

Disability

Disaggregation 

for English 

Language 

Learners

Universal 

Design

Rhode Island ■ ■

South Carolina ■

South Dakota

Tennessee ■ ■ ■

Texas ■ ■

Utah ■

Vermont ■ ■ ■

Virginia ■ ■ ■

Washington

West Virginia ■ ■ ■

Wisconsin ■ ■ ■

Wyoming ■ ■

Total Regular 

States 20 11 21 12 45

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 1 2 4 2

* Did not complete survey.

including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency 

(Thompson, Johnstone & Thurlow, 2002). Forty-five states (90%) and two 

unique states address universal design while only four states do not address universal design at any time (8%) (see Table 8).

Emerging Practices
20 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

The areas in which states are addressing universal design are shown in Figure 7. 

More than half of the states are addressing universal design at the item development level (n=31, 62%), item review level (n=30, 60%), and by including requirements for universal design in a request for proposals (RFP) for test development 

(n=27, 54%). 

Figure 7. Areas of Universal Design Addressed by State Assessments

Tables and Figures 092605 

Figure 7: Areas of Universal Design Addressed by State Assessments 

20

19

4

4

27

31

30

0 10 20 30 40 50

Item development

Item review

RFP for test development

Test specifications

Analysis of field test results

Not addressed

Other

Number of Regular States

Universally Designed Assessments: Item Review Process

As part of the test development process, assessments often undergo a “bias” or 

“sensitivity” review. During sensitivity reviews, representatives from communities 

who may experience bias (cultural or linguistic minorities, people from 

diverse socioeconomic levels) examine test items for potential sources of bias. 

Increasingly, persons with disabilities themselves, or representatives of disability 

communities are present at bias reviews. Nearly all states now have at least one 

disability representative on either their bias or content review teams (n=40, 80%) 

(see Figure 8).

Most often, several people represent several disability categories such as learning disability, visual impairment, and deaf/hard of hearing (n=29, 58%), or one 

person represents all disability categories (n=8, 16%) (See Figure 9). This representative may be a community person with a disability or a special education 

teacher. In one state, one person represents just one disability category. One state 

commented that it tries to include educators of special needs children on each of 

its assessment committees but does not delineate or differentiate as the survey 

question indicated.

Number of Regular States

Most states now have at 

least one disability representative on their bias or 

content review teams.
21

Figure 8. Disability Representation on Item Review and Content Review 

Committees (Number of Regular States)*

igures 092605 

17

isability Representation on Item Review and Content Review Committees 

No

3

Bias and Content 

Review

40

Bias Review

4

Other

2

did not respond to this question. 

*One state did not respond to this question.

Computer-based Large-scale State Assessments

Eleven regular states (22%) are currently in the process of developing computerbased large-scale assessments (see Figure 10). This is down from 20 states in 

2003. Special education directors cited recent budgetary concerns and a lack of 

computer technology in schools as preventing the development of computerbased assessments from gathering steam in the past decade. One unique state is 

currently developing computer-based large-scale assessments.

Figure 9. Representation on Bias Committees

More than one person represents a variety of 

disability categories

One person represents all disability categories

One person represents one disability category

Other

*One state did not respond to this question.

Emerging Practices

bles and Figures 092605 

gure 9: Representation on Bias Committees 

8

29

6

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

More than one person represents a variety of disability

categories 

One person represents all disability categories

One person represents one disability category 

Other

Number of Regular States

ne state did not respond to this question. 
22 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Tables and Figures 092605 

19

Figure 10: States Developing Computer-Based Assessments 

Yes

22%

No

70%

Other

8%

Figure 10. States Developing Computer-based Large-scale Assessments 

(Percentage of Regular States)
23

Current and Emerging Issues

AREAS OF CURRENT AND EMERGING ISSUES MOST OFTEN REPORTED BY STATES INCLUDED:

(1) accommodations, (2) achievement gap, (3) alternate assessment, (4) graduation tests, (5) reporting and/or monitoring, and (6) test/design content. The 

survey identified these for states, based on responses in 2003, and allowed states 

to identify additional issues. In 2003, at least 33 percent of regular states reported 

that high stakes graduation assessments and out-of level testing were current 

issues. Table 9 provides information on individual state responses. The area of 

concern mentioned by the largest number of states in 2005 was alternate assessment (n=33, 66%). The next most common areas of concern were accommodations and the achievement gap between students with disabilities and non-disabled 

students. Appendix B shows examples of current and emerging issues for states in 

each of these areas.

Current & Emerging Issues
24 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

AccommodationsAchievement 

Gap

Alternate 

Assessment

Graduation 

Tests

Report- ing and/or 

Monitoring

Test/Design 

Content

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 ■ ■

Table 9. Issues Addressed by States
25

Table 9. Issues Addressed by States (continued)

AccommodationsAchievement 

Gap

Alternate 

Assessment

Graduation 

Tests

Report- ing and/or 

Monitoring

Test/Design 

Content

South Carolina ■ ■

South Dakota ■ ■

Tennessee ■ ■ ■

Texas*

Utah ■ ■

Vermont*

Virginia*

Washington ■ ■ ■

West Virginia ■ ■ ■

Wisconsin*

Wyoming ■

Total Regular 

States 27 25 33 13 16 17

American Samoa*

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs

Department of 

Defense ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

District of 

Columbia*

Guam*

Mariana Islands ■ ■ ■

Marshall Islands*

Micronesia ■ ■

Palau*

Puerto Rico*

Virgin Islands ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Total Unique 

States 4 2 4 2 2 3

* No response.

Current & Emerging Issues
26 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Preferred Forms of Technical 

Assistance

BECAUSE NCEO’S PRIMARY FUNCTION IS TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, WE

conclude our surveys with an item that asks what types of technical assistance 

states desire. Figure 11 shows technical assistance preferences of states. The most 

desired type of technical assistance by states in 2005 is “how to” documents 

(n=24, 48%). Information via the Internet and review of state documents are the 

second most popular choices in 2005 (n=19, 38%). Descriptions of assessments 

in other states is the fourth-most selected choice in 2005 (n=17, 34%); this had 

been the second-highest choice in 2003.

Figure 11. Technical Assistance Desired by States

Tables and Figures 11-7-05 

Figure 11: Technical Assistance Desired by States 

24

19

19

17

14

14

13

11

9

8

6

3

3

2

1

2

2

2

3

3

1

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

 How to documents

Consultation and review of state materials

Information on Internet

Descriptions of assessments in other states

Individual consultation in your state

Small group clinics

Conference calls

Individual consultation at meetings

Assistance with data analysis

Awareness materials

Self-review materials

Other

Number of States

Regular States Unique States

The form of technical 

assistance most desired 

by states is “how to” 

documents.
27

References

References

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended in 2004, PL 108-

446, 20 USC 1400 et seq. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2002).

Roeber, E. (2002). Setting standards on alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 

42). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational 

Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/

Synthesis42.html.

Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design 

applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at 

http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html.

Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: 

A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at 

http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/2001StateReport.html

Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: 

Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center 

on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/nceo/

OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm.
28 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 
29

Appendix A: Working Definitions of 

Students with the “Most Significant 

Cognitive Disabilities”a

Alabama Students with cognitive functioning at least three standard deviations below the mean (I.Q. 55 and below) 

on an intellectual assessment and whose cognitive impairments may prevent them from attaining gradelevel achievements, even with the most appropriate instruction.

Alaska Generally 2 standard deviation’s below norm on cognitive testing.

Arizona • Evidence of a Significant Cognitive Disability: Empirical evidence (formal testing results, Multi-Disciplinary Team evaluation results, etc.) of a significant cognitive disability that prevents the acquisition of the 

AZ Academic Standards.

• Intensity of Instruction: It is extremely difficult for the student to acquire, maintain, generalize, and 

apply academic skills across environments even with extensive/intensive, pervasive, frequent, and individualized instruction in multiple settings.

• Curricular Outcomes: The goals and objectives in the student’s IEP focus on progress within functional achievement indicators and the student’s present level of educational performance significantly 

impedes participation and completion of the general education curriculum even with significant program modifications.

Arkansas • The student’s demonstrated cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior in the home, school, and 

community environments are significantly below age expectations, even with program modifications, 

adaptations and accommodations.

• The student’s course of study is primarily functional and life-skills oriented.

• The student requires extensive direct instruction and/or extensive supports in multiple settings to acquire, maintain, and generalize academic and functional skills necessary for application in school, work, 

home, and community environments.

• The student demonstrates severe and complex disabilities and poor adaptive skills levels (determined 

to be significantly below age expectations by that student’s comprehensive assessment) that essentially prevent the student from meaningful participation in the standard academic core curriculum or 

achievement of the academic content standards established at grade level.

• The student’s disability causes dependence on others for many, if not all, daily living needs, and the 

student is expected to require extensive ongoing support in adulthood.

• The student’s inability to complete the standard academic curriculum at grade level is not primarily the 

result of the following:

• Excessive or extended absences, poor attendance, or lack of instruction; 

• Sensory (visual or auditory) or physical disabilities; emotional-behavioral disabilities; or a specific 

learning disability; 

• Social, cultural, linguistic or economic differences;

• Below average reading level;

• Low achievement in general;

• Expectations of poor performance;

• Disruptive behavior;

• The student’s IQ;

• The anticipated impact of the student’s performance on the school/district performance scores; 

and

• The student’s disability category, educational placement, type of instruction, and/or amount of time 

receiving special education services.

California The student’s cognitive functional level is less than 1/2 of his/her chronological age.

Definitions of Students with “Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities”

a The actual question states responded to was: “What is your state’s working definition of students with ‘significant cognitive 

disabilities?’”
30 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Colorado Cognitive skills/abilities impact ability to perform at ability level.

Connecticut Students with significant cognitive disabilities are those who 1) require extensive individualized instruction 

to acquire, maintain or generalize skills; 2) require direct instruction in multiple settings to successfully generalize skills to natural settings, including home, school and community and 3) the student’s program has a 

functional focus even though the student is working in the general education curriculum.

Delaware Students who are in functional life skill curriculum.

Florida http://info.fldoe.org/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-1719/DPS_04-055.pdf and http://info.fldoe.org/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File1858/AA_Check.pdf

Georgia IEP decision for students on functional curriculum and unable to participate in general education assessments with supports and accommodations.

Hawaii Students program reflects an emphasis on survival/functional/readiness skills. The student demonstrates:

Significant cognitive disabilities and adaptive skill levels that prevent participation in the standard 

academic curriculum, even

With modifications and accommodations, requires extensive direct instruction in multiple settings 

to accomplish the

Application and transfer of skills, and is involved in a functional, readiness and education skills 

program.

Idaho We use 3 criteria: 1) student with a disability demonstrates cognitive ability and adaptive behavior that will 

prevent him or her from achieving the state’s academic standards. The team must consider all sources of 

data about the student’s present level of performance; 2) student has needs that require his or her educational program to be an adaptation of the general education curriculum. The effects of a disability may 

mean a student needs a course of study, activities, or lessons that are primarily functional and living-skill 

oriented and which cannot by measured by the general education statewide or district-wide assessment 

system-even with accommodations or adaptations; 3) student has needs that require instruction to be 

adapted and highly individualized in order for the student to acquire, maintain, or generalize the fundamental skills taught.

Illinois Illinois has not defined this term.

Indiana CRITERIA (All three criteria must be satisfied for a student to be eligible to be

assessed on alternate achievement standards using the ISTAR.)

• Evidence of a Significant Cognitive Disability: There is empirical evidence (e.g., formal testing results, 

M-team evaluation results, etc.) of a significant cognitive disability that prevents the acquisition of 

Indiana’s Academic Standards necessary to attain a high school diploma.

• Intensity of Instruction: The student is unable to acquire, maintain, generalize, and apply academic skills 

across environments even with extensive/intensive, pervasive, frequent, and individualized instruction 

in multiple settings.

• Curricular Outcomes: The goals and objectives listed in this student’s IEP focus on progress within 

functional achievement indicators, and the student’s present level of educational performance significantly impedes participation and completion of the general education curriculum even with significant 

program modifications.

Iowa Iowa defines participation guidelines for the alternate assessment in its Educator’s Guide. This guide can be 

accessed at: Alternate Assessment Educator’s Guide. Iowa Department of Education at www.state.ia.us/

educate/ecese/cfcs/altassess/index.html

Kansas • The student has an active Individual Education Plan and the present levels of educational performance 

data indicates that with regard to progress in the general curriculum area under consideration, the 

student is significantly delayed. AND

• The student’s learning objectives and expected outcomes in the academic area under consideration 

requires substantial adjustment to the general curriculum of that area. The student’s learning objectives and expected outcomes in the area focus on functional application, as illustrated in the benchmarks, indicators, and clarifying examples within the Extended Standards. AND

• The student primarily requires direct and extensive instruction in the academic area under consideration to acquire, maintain, generalize, and transfer the skills done in the naturally occurring settings of 

the student’s life (such as school, vocational/career, community, recreation/leisure and home). AND

• The student is presented with unique and significant challenges in demonstrating his or her knowledge 

and skills on any assessment available in the academic area under consideration.

• The decision to determine a student’s eligibility to participate in the alternate assessment may NOT 

RESULT PRIMARILY from:
31

Kansas 

(continued)

• Excessive or extended absence

• Any specific categorical label

• Social, cultural, or economic difference

• Amount of time he/she receives special education services

• Achievement significantly lower than his or her same age peers

Kentucky Taken from state regulation (703 KAR 5:070-pg. 5) ”A small percentage of students with disabilities shall 

participate in the Alternate Portfolio Assessment Program. These students are generally those who have 

moderate to severe cognitive disabilities and represent 1-2% of the total student population.”

Louisiana A student participating in LEAP alternate assessment shall progress toward a certificate of achievement.

B. To be eligible for participation in LEAP Alternate assessment, the student shall:

1. have a current multidisciplinary evaluation of the following exceptionalities:

a. moderate mental disability;

b. severe mental disability;

c. profound mental disability; or

2. following exceptionalities AND have an assessed level of intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior three or more standard deviations below the mean:

i. multiple disabilities;

ii. traumatic brain injury;

iii. autism.

Maine See http://www.mecas.org/laa/othermaterials/LAS_pnp_pgs47-48.pdf

Maryland No response

Massachusetts Students taking our alternate assessment and working at a level of difficulty that represents work well 

below grade level.

Michigan Still working on it.

Minnesota Determined through IEP process of each child.

Mississippi • The student demonstrates significant cognitive deficits and poor adaptive skill levels (as determined by 

that student’s comprehensive assessment) that prevent participation in the standard academic curriculum or achievement of the academic content standards, even with accommodations and modifications.

• The student requires extensive direct instruction in both academic and functional skills in multiple settings to accomplish the application and transfer of those skills.

• The student’s inability to complete the standard academic curriculum is not the result of excessive or 

extended absences or primarily the result of visual, auditory, or physical disabilities; emotional-behavioral disabilities; specific learning disabilities; or social, cultural, or economic differences.

• To be classified as a student having a “significant cognitive disability,” ALL of the above must be true.

Missouri MAP-Alternate Determining Student Eligibility Worksheet

The student meets all five of the eligibility criteria below:

• The student has significant problems acquiring new skills, and acquisition of skills must be taught in 

very small steps.

• The student does not keep pace with peers, even with the majority of students in special education 

with respect to the total number of skills acquired.

• The student’s educational program centers on the functional application of the Missouri Show-Me 

Standards.

• The IEP team, as documented in the IEP, does not recommend participation in the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) subject areas or taking the MAP with accommodations.

• The student’s inability to participate in the MAP subject area assessments is not primarily the result of 

excessive absences; visual or auditory disabilities; or social, cultural, language or economic differences.

Montana If the IEP Team have to answers “Yes” to all four of the following questions the student meets the criteria 

for a child with a Significant cognitive disability.

• Does the student have an active IEP and receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?

• Do the student’s demonstrated cognitive abilities and adaptive behavior require substantial adjustments to the general curriculum?

• Do the student’s learning objectives and expected outcomes focus on functional application of skills, as 

illustrated in the student’s IEP’s annual goals and short-term objectives?

• Does the student require direct and extensive instruction to acquire, maintain, generalize and

transfer new skills?

Definitions of Students with “Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities”
32 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Nebraska Students with the most significant disabilities are those whose course of study is based on a functional curriculum and life-skills oriented. Our state’s definition is not limited to specific disabilities.

Nevada Students in Nevada with the most significant cognitive disabilities include those who are currently assessed 

with SCAAN, as well as a number of other students whose cognitive disabilities result in very limited participation in grade-level curriculum, and whose classroom performance is not measured against grade-level 

standards.

New 

Hampshire

Currently has “The Decision Process”

When to decide.

Who is appropriate for the NHEIAP-Alternate Assessment?

A student is eligible to participate in the NHEIAP-Alternate Assessment if her/his IEP team determines that 

the student meets all of the following participation criteria:

• The student has an IEP, and

• Evidence that the student’s demonstrated cognitive ability and adaptive behavioral skills: prevent him/

her from demonstrating achievement of the proficiency standards described in the NH Curriculum 

Frameworks, even with appropriate accommodations, and require individualized instruction in multiple 

settings (school, work, home and community environments) to acquire, generalize, and transfer skills 

necessary for functional application, and

• There is historical data (current and longitudinal across multiple settings) that confirms the individual 

student criteria listed above.

New Jersey We allow participation in our alternate assessment if the student has not been instructed in any of the 

skills tested and cannot do any of the types of items on the general assessment as determined by the IEP 

team.

New Mexico The working definition of “significant cognitive disability” is supplied by the criteria for participation on a 

NM alternate assessment: Does the student’s past and present performance in multiple settings (i.e., home, 

school, community) indicate that a significant cognitive disability is present? Does the student need intensive, pervasive, or extensive levels of support in school, home, and community settings? Do the student’s 

current cognitive and adaptive skills and performance levels require direct instruction to accomplish the 

acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of skills in multiple settings (home, school, community)?

New York The alternate performance level for the state learning standards and the state assessment for students 

with severe disabilities reflect the knowledge, skills, and understandings that such students are expected 

to know and be able to do as indicated in their individualized education programs. Students with severe 

disabilities means students who have limited cognitive abilities combined with behavioral and/or physical 

limitations, and who require highly specialized education, social, psychological and medical services in order 

to maximize their full potential for useful and meaningful participation in society and for self-fulfillment. 

Students with severe disabilities may experience severe speech, language, and/or perceptual-cognitive 

impairments, and evidence challenging behaviors that interfere with learning and socialization opportunities. 

These students may also have extremely fragile psychological conditions and may require personal care, 

physical/verbal supports and/or prompts and assistive technology devices.

North 

Carolina

No response.

North Dakota We use criteria for participation in Alternate: Cognitive and adaptive behavior prevent completion of all or 

part of the general education curriculum and require frequent and individualized instruction in multiple settings in order to maintain or generalize across settings and curriculum is so individualized that the general 

assessment would not reflect what the student is being taught.

Ohio The following criteria will assist IEP teams in determining whether or not a student should participate in 

alternate assessment. (This criteria appears in a document titled, “Guidelines for Participation in State-developed Alternate Assessment”)

• Alternate assessment is appropriate only for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. 

Significant limitations in the area of cognitive functioning should be documented in the student’s evaluation team report. 

• While these students do access the general curriculum, instruction is chiefly focused on the acquisition 

of essential life skills. 

• Many students with significant cognitive disabilities have complex medical, communication, developmental, and/or adaptive needs. Often, they require assistive technology devices for communication, 

travel, and/or self-care. 
33

Ohio

(continued)

• Generally, participation in the alternate assessment is not appropriate for students who are engaged in 

and making progress in the general curriculum. Although these students require individualized instruction, they have developed the skills that enable meaningful participation on statewide assessments. 

• Alternate assessment is appropriate for students who have the most significant cognitive limitations 

and therefore, require the highest level of individualized instruction.

Oklahoma A student is defined as having a significant cognitive disability through the completion of the “Alternate Assessment Participation Checklist”.

Oregon Students with significant cognitive disabilities are those students whose instruction focuses primarily on life 

skills and self-help skills such as walking, communicating, choice-making, feeding, and hygiene.

Pennsylvania There are six criteria and a process outlined that the IEP teams consider in making the determination 

that the statewide assessment is not appropriate and that the alternate assessment is appropriate for the 

student. Please refer to the PDE website at www.pde.state.pa.us and in the Accommodations Booklet the 

six criteria are outlined in detail.

Rhode Island Children with severe or profound mental retardation and meet the 8 criteria that IEP teams must answer 

to determine eligibility for alt assessment.

South 

Carolina

We do not have a working definition. Students who meet the criteria for alternate assessment are typically 

students who are classified as students with profound and trainable mental disabilities in the state classification system.

South Dakota To be identified as having a significant cognitive disability, the student must meet all of the following criteria: 1. The student has an active IEP with annual goals and short term objectives/benchmarks which focus 

on extended standards; 2. the student’s cognitive abilities are 2.0 standard deviations or more below the 

mean (inclusive of the standard error of measurement); 3. the student primarily requires direct and extensive instruction to acquire, maintain, generalize and transfer skills done in naturally occurring settings of the 

student’s life. (e.g. school, community, home, vocational/career, and recreation and leisure).

Tennessee The student demonstrates cognitive ability and adaptive skills which prevent full involvement and completion of the state approved content standards even with program modifications. The student requires 

intensive, frequent individualized instruction in a variety of settings including school, community, home or 

the workplace to acquire, maintain, and generalize functional academics and life skills.

Texas Not available at this time.

Utah Utah has not defined “significant cognitive disabilities” --we have for eligibility criteria students must meet 

to participate in the alternate assessment. This is decided by the IEP team.

Vermont The student’s level of cognitive ability and adaptive skills prevent achievement of these skills and standards 

designated for grade level classmates who do not have disabilities. In addition, the students program addresses skills and standards that are not measured by the general assessment.

Virginia We don’t have anything official. We do have a decision guide for use by LEAs in determining which students will participate in the VAAP. Here’s a link to that document:

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/suptsmemos/2002/inf049b.pdf

Washington Not specifically defined.

West Virginia Student exhibits significant impairment of cognitive abilities and adaptive skills to the extent that he or she 

requires extensive modifications and functional application of Content Standards and Objectives for West 

Virginia Schools (CSOs) and/or instruction in functional daily living skills and access skills (social, motor and 

communication) not directly addressed in the CSOs but embedded in instructional standards-based activities.

Wisconsin Students who cannot demonstrate their knowledge on the standardized test even with accommodations.

Wyoming Significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.

American

Samoa

No response.

Bureau of 

Indian Affairs

We use various state definitions.

District of 

Columbia

No response.

Definitions of Students with “Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities”
34 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES 

Department 

of Defense

Students with an identified moderate to profound intellectual disability as measured on a standardized IQ 

assessment. 

Guam No response.

Mariana 

Islands

Students not considered eligible for standard assessments.

Marshall 

Islands

No response.

Micronesia No response.

Palau No response.

Puerto Rico No response.

Virgin Islands Definition is available in 2005 Virgin islands Accountability workbook, the final version of which is not available at time of this survey.
35

Appendix B: Examples of Current and 

Emerging Issues

Accommodations • Continued professional development needed, especially for general education teachers.

• Continuing work on universal design and appropriate accommodations.

• Data collection on all accommodations used.

• Degree of specificity required in state guidance.

• Determination of allowable accommodations.

• Effectiveness of computer based accommodations and impact on scores.

• Impact of accommodations on test results.

• Reading test accommodation for hearing impaired students.

• Reading the reading assessment at certain grade levels.

• Technical adequacy.

• Technical assistance on appropriateness of specific accommodations for both instruction and assessment.

Achievement Gap • Attention that students with disabilities are being paid has been beneficial, but also unintended negative consequences, such as blame for not making AYP.

• Bridging the gap seems to be slowing down.

• Closing the gap for subpopulations vs. general population.

• Concerned about small percentage of students who do not qualify for the alternate assessment, but 

are working so far below grade level that success on the regular assessment is nearly impossible.

• Growing gap between special education and non-disabled peers.

• How do we decrease the gap or, are we already doing things well? Need to identify successful practices based on appropriate data.

• Many gaps: students with disabilities/non-disabled, poverty vs. wealth, minority/non-minority, ELL.

• Need strategies for closing the gap.

• Research-validated intervention and instructional strategies at the secondary level.

• This issue is problematic for school districts in regard to the consequences as a result of AYP sanctions.

Alternate 

Assessment

• May need to redesign.

• Continuing to address validity/reliability issues.

• Controversy over need for “alternate to alternate”—off level testing.

• We are revising our alternate assessment to reflect grade-level content.

• Piloting science and math items in alternate assessment.

• Developing cut scores.

• Standard setting.

• Appropriate use of alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards.

• Cumbersome, time consuming and costly to administer.

• Currently refining out state process to ensure high technical quality.

• Standardization, reliability and validity.

• Developing a standard for all documents that will help “unpack” the standards at different depths, 

breadths, and levels of complexity. This will help with the development of items and test verification 

for a new alternate assessment.

• Science alternate will be statewide 2005-2006.

Graduation Tests • Looking at alternative...to recognize kids.

• Graduation is not contingent upon separate graduation testing.

• New graduation requirements.

• Linkage to high school diploma and access to general curriculum and high quality teachers.

• High stakes always an issue.

• Sufficient notice to students and parents when changes to the current exit exam are suggested by 

legislation.

• The governor is proposing exit exams, none at this time.

• No alternate routes to the general education diploma are available at this time.

Examples of Current & Emerging Issues
36 NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Reporting and/or 

Monitoring

• Monitoring the appropriate use of accommodations during assessment.

• Concern of students with disabilities being the group that prevents schools from making AYP— 

“some” do not want to include students with disabilities in state system of accountability.

• We will be monitoring accommodation use.

• Well defined monitoring system for ensuring compliance with regulations; annual monitoring report 

submitted each fall.

• Need for synchronization of state data bases.

• IDEA special education reporting requirements will be included on building and district report 

cards.

• Local variation on assessment practices.

• Technology systems not keeping up with need.

• Must refine reports in 2006.

• We are developing an individual student record level data system.

• Focused monitoring has positively changed the face of program oversight but is becoming a growing 

resource issue.

Test Design/

Content

• We are incorporating more elements of universal design, assistive technology.

• Assessments being developed for history and science.

• Representation in entire process of test development and large scale assessment—understanding 

universal design practices.

• Design of alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards.

• Funding, timelines, staff resources for developing new tests.

• Universal design, alignment.

• Universal design for learning. Grades 3–8 will provide additional options for alternate assessments 

and possible out-of-level assessments.

• Universal design for middle school and high school achievement tests.

• State will review and revise alternate assessment to bring them to grade level content as specified 

in NCLB.

• Universal design issues.
NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration