No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be Improved
Published: 2005-07-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has focused attention on improving the academic achievement of all students, including more than 6 million students with disabilities and requires that all students be assessed. Students with disabilities may be included through accommodations, such as extended time, or alternate assessments, such as teacher observation of student performance. To provide information about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments, GAO determined (1) the extent to which students with disabilities were included in statewide assessments; (2) what issues selected states faced in implementing alternate assessments; and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) supported states in their efforts to assess students with disabilities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In the 2003-04 school year, at least 95 percent of students with disabilities participated in statewide reading assessments in 41 of the 49 states that provided data. Students with disabilities were most often included in the regular reading assessment, and relatively few took alternate assessments. Nationwide, the percentage of students with disabilities who were excluded from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was 5 percent, but varied across states, ranging from about 2 percent to 10 percent in 2002. Among the reasons for exclusion were differences in accommodations between states and the NAEP and variation in decisions among states about who should take the NAEP. National experts and officials in the four states we studied told us that designing and implementing alternate assessments was difficult because these assessments were relatively new and the abilities of students assessed varied widely. Officials in two states said they were not using an alternate assessment measured on grade-level standards because they were unfamiliar with such assessment models or because of concerns that the assessment would not appropriately measure achievement. In addition, learning the skills to administer alternate assessments was time-consuming for teachers, as was administering the assessment. Education provided support to states on including students with disabilities in statewide assessments in a number of ways, including disseminating guidance through its Web site. However, a number of state officials told us that the regulations and guidance did not provide illustrative examples of alternate assessments and how they could be used to appropriately assess students with disabilities. In addition, our review of Education's Web site revealed that information on certain topics was difficult to locate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In the 2003-04 school year, more than 6 million students with disabilities— approximately 13 percent of all students—attended U.S. public schools. In  an effort to improve the academic achievement of all students, including  those with disabilities, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) of 2001  requires that states, districts, and schools are held accountable for their  students’ academic performance. Like all students, those with disabilities  must be included in statewide assessments of achievement under the  NCLBA. Assessments for students with disabilities are also required under  the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). States must  provide options to ensure that students with disabilities are included in  annual assessments. States need to offer accommodations to meet these  students’ needs, for example, by giving them more time to take the same  assessment as other students. States also are required to offer alternate  assessments that measure students’ performance at the same grade-level  standards or at below grade-level standards. For example, students with  the most significant cognitive disabilities could be assessed on their  knowledge of academic content, such as fractions, by having to split  groups of objects into two, three, or equal parts.  Separately, under  NCLBA, states participate periodically in the National Assessment of  Educational Progress (NAEP), which provides a national picture of  student academic achievement and a common measure of student  achievement across states.
Questions have been raised, however, about the extent to which students  with disabilities have been included in statewide assessments and whether  these assessments accurately reflected student performance. Given your  interest in these issues, we are providing you with information about (1)  the extent to which students with disabilities were included in statewide  assessments; (2) what issues selected states faced in implementing  alternate assessments; and (3) how the U.S. Department of Education  (Education) supported states in their efforts to assess students with  disabilities.
To obtain this information we used multiple data collection methods. To  provide a national perspective, we reviewed and verified data on statewide  assessments for the most recent school year available, 2003-04, from the  State Consolidated Performance Reports provided by state officials to  Education. Complete data were not available for mathematics  assessments. Thus, we only verified reading-assessment data. This  included data from 48 states and the District of Columbia on the  participation rate of students with disabilities in assessments and data  from 50 states and the District of Columbia on the types of assessments in  which students with disabilities were included. Two states did not provide  participation rate data in a usable format for students with disabilities, and  one of these states also did not do so for all students. We also interviewed  national education organization representatives and assessment experts.  Second, we made site visits to four states—Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts,  and Oregon—to collect in-depth information from state, district, and local  officials. We selected these states to obtain variance in the participation  rate of students with disabilities in statewide assessments, the type of  alternate assessment data available in each state, innovative state  approaches to assessment, and the availability of state assessment data for  students with disabilities. We reviewed several national studies on the  effects of students being excluded from NAEP and determined they were  reliable for the purposes for which we used them. We also analyzed  Education’s documents and Web site, legislation, and other materials  related to the assessment requirements for students with disabilities. We  conducted our work between September 2004 and June 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Students with disabilities are a complex and diverse group. These students  can have a wide range of physical and psychological disabilities, from  severe cognitive delays or emotional disorders to specific learning  disabilities that can affect their ability to learn. In addition, students with  the same disability may demonstrate different levels of academic aptitude  and achievement. Individual students with disabilities may demonstrate  grade-level or above achievement in some academic areas, while at the  same time demonstrating lower academic achievement in other areas.  Finally, students with disabilities may require different approaches to  assess their performance.
Two federal laws specifically require states to administer assessments for  students with disabilities: NCLBA and the Individuals with Disabilities  Education Act (IDEA) last amended in 2004. NCLBA, which reauthorized  the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was designed to improve  academic achievement for all students. NCLBA requires that students with  disabilities be included in statewide assessments that are used to  determine whether schools and districts meet state goals. Further, NCLBA  requires that all students, including students with disabilities, be measured  against academic achievement standards established by the states.  Specifically, NCLBA requires annual participation in assessments in third  through eighth grades and one high school grade for reading and  mathematics by the 2005-6 school year. To be deemed as making progress,  each school must show that the school as a whole, as well as each of  designated groups such as students with disabilities, met the state  proficiency goals. Schools must also show that at least 95 percent of  students in grades required to take the test have done so. Further, schools  must also demonstrate that they have met state targets on another  measure of progress – graduation rates in high school or attendance or  other measures in elementary or middle schools.
Under NCLBA, states are required to participate in NAEP for reading and  math assessments in grades four and eight, although student participation  continues to be voluntary. The purpose of this requirement was to use  NAEP scores as confirmatory evidence about student achievement on  state tests.  According to Education, confirming state test results  represented a new formal purpose for the NAEP. Also called “The Nation’s  Report Card,” the NAEP has been conducted regularly since 1969. Since  then, this assessment has provided a national measure of student  achievement. The NAEP can be used to track trends in student  achievement over time or to compare student performance in a particular  state with the national average. In 1996, Education developed a new  inclusion policy that provided for accommodations allowing most students  with disabilities to participate meaningfully in the NAEP. This policy was  developed in response to increases in the numbers of students with  disabilities, the attention paid to their needs, and a corresponding demand  for information about their academic progress. Under the old policy, far  fewer students with disabilities had been included in testing.
IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs of  children with disabilities, including children with significant cognitive  disabilities. The law mandates that a free appropriate public education be  made available for all eligible children with disabilities, requires an  individualized education program (IEP) for each student, the inclusion of  students with disabilities in state and district assessments, and requires  states to provide appropriate accommodations for students who can take  the regular assessment and to develop alternate assessments for students  who cannot participate meaningfully in the regular assessment. The IEP  team, which develops the IEP, also decides how students with disabilities  participate in assessments, either without accommodations, with  accommodations, or through alternate assessments.
Accommodations alter the way a regular assessment is administered. They  provide students with disabilities the opportunity to demonstrate their  academic achievement on a regular assessment without being impeded by  their disabilities. For example, a student may need extended time to finish  the assessment or someone to read the instructions aloud. Another  example of an accommodation is taking the assessment in a small group  setting.
Alternate assessments are designed for the relatively few students with  disabilities who are unable to participate in the regular statewide  assessment, even with appropriate accommodations. For example, a  student with the most significant cognitive and physical disabilities may be  able to communicate only through moving her eyes and blinking. An  alternate assessment for this student could include teacher observation  reports and samples of student work. Similar to the regular assessments,  NCLBA requires that alternate assessments be aligned with the state’s  achievement standards. However, these assessments may be scored  against grade-level or below grade-level achievement standards. See table  1 for examples of assessment types and achievement standards.
An alternate assessment based upon grade-level achievement standards  reflects the same standards as the regular assessment. For example, a  student with an emotional disability, who might do her best work while  being supervised, could solve an algebraic problem for a missing variable  that is similar to items on the regular assessment while her teacher  observed her perform the task correctly. Because the items are similar in  complexity, the alternate assessment—observing the student performing  the academic task correctly—would measure the same grade-level  achievement standard as the regular assessment. For some students who  could not be accommodated on the regular assessment, this method  allows them to demonstrate their knowledge of grade-level academic  content.
An alternate assessment based upon below grade-level achievement  standards reflects standards that are less complex than those on the  regular assessment. In contrast to a student solving an algebraic problem  for a missing variable, a student with a cognitive disability could  determine which coin is missing from a set of coins while his teacher  records his efforts on a videotape. For some students, the alternate  assessment allows them to demonstrate their knowledge of academic  content at their individual developmental levels. Education’s guidance  states that these below grade-level standards are appropriate only for  students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The guidance  placed no limit on the number of students that could be assessed against  these standards. Under NCLBA, states and districts can count the  proficient scores of students taking assessments with below grade-level  standards as meeting state achievement goals provided the number of  these students does not exceed 1 percent of all students.
In addition, Education announced a new policy in April 2005 allowing  states additional flexibility in assessing some students with disabilities— those who are not significantly cognitively disabled, but face considerable  challenges in their academic development. For example, some students  with disabilities may be 3 to 5 years behind their peers academically. The  additional flexibility allows states to assess more students using less  complex or below grade-level achievement standards. Further, qualified  states were allowed to count the scores of these students as meeting state  achievement goals, as long as the number of proficient scores for these  students did not exceed 2 percent of all students.
section_title: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year
paragraphs: Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading  assessments in the 2003-04 school year. Students with disabilities were  usually included in the regular reading assessments and sometimes were  included in alternate assessments. Two states that we visited,  Massachusetts and Oregon, had developed innovative approaches to  including students with disabilities in statewide assessments. According to  Education, 5 percent of students with disabilities were excluded from the  NAEP, but state exclusion rates varied. This was in part because the  assessment does not allow accommodations that are permitted on some  statewide assessments.
subsections: section_title: Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Reading Assessments, and Participation Rates Were Similar to Those of Nondisabled Students
paragraphs: Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading  assessments in the 2003-04 school year according to state reports to  Education. Forty-one states reported that they met NCLBA’s participation  requirement by having at least 95 percent of students with disabilities  participate in statewide reading assessments. Seven states and the District  of Columbia reported participation rates below 95 percent for students  with disabilities. Two states did not provide participation rate data for  students with disabilities in a usable format. The participation requirement  is part of what is considered to determine whether states, districts, and  schools demonstrate adequate yearly progress. There are programmatic  implications for not demonstrating progress goals. Two states, Indiana and  Michigan, did not provide these data in a form that we could report. Figure  1 presents the distribution of participation rates on statewide assessments.
State participation rates for students with disabilities were generally  similar to those for all students. Most states reported that an equal or  slightly higher percentage of the total student population participated in  statewide assessments compared to students with disabilities. Differences  in the participation rates were usually minor. Connecticut, Georgia, and  Oklahoma reported that the participation rate among students with  disabilities in statewide reading assessments was higher than among all  students. An official in one state said that the state had made efforts to  boost the participation rate of students with disabilities, including issuing  state guidance and holding regional workshops. The official also said that,  because students with disabilities are a small subset of the state’s student  population, it is easier to boost participation among students with  disabilities than among all students. Participation rate data by state can be  found in appendix I.
section_title: Most Students with Disabilities Were Included in Regular Reading Assessments, and Relatively Few Were Included through Alternate Assessments
paragraphs: In 49 states and the District of Columbia, most students with disabilities  who were tested in the 2003-04 school year were included through regular  reading assessments. In over two-thirds of these states, more than 90  percent of students with disabilities were included in the regular reading  assessment. In the four site-visit states, most students with disabilities  were included in the regular reading assessment.
In three of the four site-visit states, the majority of students with  disabilities who were included through regular reading assessments  received accommodations in the 2003-04 year. These data ranged from 58  percent in Florida to 89 percent in Massachusetts. Data from one state that  we visited, Florida, showed that additional time and other scheduling  changes and changes of setting were the most frequent accommodations.  Although the other 2 states did not provide data on the most frequently  used accommodations, small group settings and extended time were the  most frequent accommodations on the NAEP reading assessment which  reflects the accommodations students receive in statewide assessment  systems.
Alternate reading assessments with grade-level standards were used by  nine states. In six of these states, less than 10 percent of students with  disabilities were included in these assessments. In the other three states,  14 percent to 21 percent of students with disabilities were included in  these assessments. Two of the four states that we visited, Massachusetts  and Oregon, reported including students with disabilities in alternate  reading assessments that measured grade-level standards. For information  about the percentage of students included in this type of assessment, see  figure 2. For state-by-state use of different types of assessments, see  appendix I.
Alternate reading assessments with below grade-level standards were used  by 49 states and the District of Columbia. In most of these states less than  10 percent of students with disabilities were included in these  assessments. However, Texas included 60 percent of students with  disabilities in alternate assessments that measured below grade-level  standards. Officials in Hawaii, the only state that did not include any  students in this type of assessment, reported that the state is developing  an alternate assessment that measures below grade-level standards. All  four states that we visited reported including students with disabilities in  these assessments. For information about the percentage of students  included in this type of assessment, see figure 2.
We examined data in Florida and Massachusetts to determine the  relationship between the disability and type of assessment used. About 40  percent of autistic students received alternate assessments in  Massachusetts, the highest of any type of disability. Students with physical  disabilities had the highest percentage of students receiving regular  assessments without accommodations in Massachusetts. In Florida, over  60 percent of students with autism received alternate assessments  measuring below grade-level standards. Table 2 shows assessment data  based on disability type for Massachusetts.
Few differences existed in how students were included in assessments  based on their year in school according to data from the two states we  visited that provided data. In both Massachusetts and Iowa, a similar  percentage of students were given accommodations and alternate  assessments across several different grade levels.
section_title: Massachusetts and Oregon Used Innovative Approaches to Assess the Performance of Students with Disabilities
paragraphs: Two of the four states that we visited, Massachusetts and Oregon, used  what experts described as innovative assessment approaches to measure  the performance of students with disabilities. Massachusetts developed an  alternate assessment system that can measure grade-level and below  grade-level standards. State officials have developed a resource guide that  details the alignment between the curriculum and achievement standards.  For each content area, the state has identified a progression of  increasingly rigorous standards, with grade-level standards as the most  rigorous, through which students can demonstrate knowledge of the same  content. The performance of all students is measured with the same  content, but the progression of standards let students with widely varying  abilities demonstrate their understanding of the content.
Example: 3a- b,  for a = 3, b= 7 “as written”
Oregon’s assessment allows all students, disabled and nondisabled, to use  certain accommodations when taking the regular assessment. This is  considered innovative because it recognizes that any student may need  accommodations, regardless of whether they have recognized disabilities,  and offers them certain accommodations, such as changes in test settings  or timing. In this way, students with and without disabilities are not  considered differently in their use of accommodations.
section_title: Nationwide 5 Percent of Students with Disabilities Are Excluded from NAEP, but State Exclusion Rates Varied
paragraphs: The NAEP began offering students with disabilities accommodations in  1996, and some of the more commonly used accommodations included  extended time to complete the assessment, testing in small-group sessions,  and reading the directions aloud. Other accommodations included, for  example, explanation of directions, scribes, large print, and the use of  word processors or similar devices.
NAEP has provided some accommodations, but nationwide about 5  percent of students with disabilities have been excluded from the  assessment. Education officials discussed several reasons students with  disabilities were excluded from the assessment including: (1) the student  had such a severe disability that the student could not meaningfully  participate; (2) the principal and the IEP team decided that the student  should not participate; and (3) the student’s IEP required that the student  be tested with accommodations that NAEP does not allow. At the state  level, the percentage of students with disabilities who were excluded  varied in 2002. For example, over 10 percent of students with disabilities  were excluded from the 2002 NAEP reading assessment in three states,  and only 2 percent to 3 percent of students with disabilities were excluded  in a handful of other states.  According to Education officials, the  inclusion of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessments is affected  by sampling issues as well as by the limitations of accommodations that  are appropriate for the content covered by the NAEP.
Research suggests that NAEP results for some states may be affected by  exclusion rates. A 2003 report commissioned by Education found that  different state exclusion rates affected NAEP’s rankings of states on  student reading achievement. One purpose of the NAEP is to provide a  basis for comparing states, each of which has its own standards and  assessment system. These state rankings are often used by states and  other organizations to compare states and determine how well states are  educating their students. Additionally, state rankings are viewed by  parents and state and local officials as important indicators of the quality  of their states’ education systems. The report examined how state  rankings would change under two different assumptions about how  excluded students would have performed on the assessment if they had  been included. The report found that state rankings changed for over half  of the states on both the fourth and eighth grade NAEP with both  assumptions. In one scenario, two states fell 6 places and one state fell 7  places in the state rankings.
In addition, a 2003 report that was commissioned by the National  Assessment Governing Board, an independent, bipartisan body appointed  by Education, concluded that changes in state achievement on the NAEP  between 1998 and 2002 could be partially explained by changes in  exclusion rates. Changes in state results on the NAEP are frequently used  by states and researchers to gauge which states have successfully raised  student achievement. The study examined the 36 states that participated in  both the 1998 and 2002 NAEP reading assessments. The report concluded  that “a substantial portion of variation in states’ achievement score  changes can be accounted for by changes in their rates of exclusion. A  report released by Education, the 2002 NAEP Report Card, found similar  associations and said that there is a moderate tendency for exclusion rates  to be associated with achievement gains but that exclusion rates do not  entirely explain score gains.
Some students with disabilities are excluded from the NAEP because it  does not allow some accommodations that are permitted by on statewide  assessments. Education officials said that certain accommodations would  interfere with the NAEP’s measurement of the knowledge being assessed.  For instance, in the reading assessment, reading the passage and questions  aloud to a student was not permitted because the assessment is intended  to measure the student’s ability to read the written word as well as  understand the meaning of the passage. Education officials also said that  some accommodations could not be administered with the assessment for  logistical reasons. For example, extending testing over several days was  not allowed because NAEP testing administrators are in each school only  one day. Education has not developed alternate assessments for the  NAEP. Table 3 lists accommodations that are allowed on some statewide  assessments but not on the NAEP.
Another reason why states' exclusion rates for could vary on NAEP may  relate to state policies and requirements regarding student participation of  students with disabilities. Although states are required to participate in the  NAEP, student participation in this assessment is voluntary.  Whether  students with disabilities take the NAEP depends primarily on the  recommendation of the student's IEP team, along with the availability of  appropriate accommodations. Team decision criteria could vary across  states, leading to differences in exclusion rates.
Education officials said they are implementing a new policy for how  students with disabilities should be included in the NAEP assessment that  will reduce variability in the inclusion of students with disabilities.  Previously, the student’s IEP team and principal had to decide whether a  student could participate in the NAEP assessment, leaving room for  interpretation.  The new policy will require schools to include students in  the NAEP assessment if the students took the regular statewide  assessments (with or without accommodations) and the students’ IEPs do  not specify that they be provided accommodations that NAEP does not  allow.  In addition, the new policy will require schools to include students  with disabilities who took the state’s alternate assessment, if the school  believes that the students can participate meaningfully in the NAEP  assessment.   The new policy will first be used with the 2006 NAEP  assessments.
section_title: States Faced Challenges in Designing and Preparing Teachers to Administer Alternate Assessments
paragraphs: States faced challenges in designing alternate assessments (for grade- and  below grade-level standards) and helping teachers to administer them for  this small group of students with widely varying abilities. Officials from  the four states we studied in depth, assessment companies, and national  education organizations told us that designing and implementing alternate  assessments that measured student achievement on state standards was  difficult. These officials also told us that special education teachers  needed training over a period of up to 3 years to administer alternate  assessments properly.
subsections: section_title: National Education Organizations and Some State Officials Reported Difficulties Designing Alternate Assessments
paragraphs: Designing alternate assessments posed difficulties, in part because of  states’ inexperience with these types of assessments. Education officials  and representatives from national education organizations told us that  many states did not begin to design alternate assessments until required to  do so by IDEA 1997 for the 2000-01 school year. Education officials noted  that states’ alternate assessments generally had not been aligned to state  standards. Specifically, many states designed their alternate assessments  to measure functional skills, such as using public transportation  independently, rather than academic achievement. Consequently,  designing alternate assessments that measured academic achievement was  relatively new for many states.
subsections: section_title: Widely Varying Abilities of Students with Disabilities
paragraphs: The widely varying abilities of students was identified by experts and  officials as a key factor that made designing alternate assessments to  measure academic achievement challenging. For example, some students  with significant cognitive disabilities can communicate verbally or through  using technology such as boards with pictures to which the student can  point, while others can communicate only through moving their eyes or  blinking. Further, some students may best show their achievement  through working with their teacher, while others have the ability to create  work samples independently. Still other students may be able to take  portions of the regular assessment in one subject, but require a different  approach for another subject. National assessment and education experts  told us that measuring these students’ achievement often required an  individualized approach.
section_title: Design Process Took Time
paragraphs: Efforts to design alternate assessments that measured academic  achievement as required by NCLBA took about 3 years, according to  federal education officials and assessment experts. The process for  designing alternate assessments involved a number of steps and decisions,  such as choosing a format and revising or modifying assessments. In the  four states we studied, two offered the portfolio format as their alternate  assessment, and the other two offered a number of options, including the  portfolio. See table 4 for a description of these assessments.
A collection of student work gathered to demonstrate student  performance on specific skills and knowledge, generally linked to state  content standards. Portfolio contents are individualized and may  include, among other evidence, samples of student work, test results,  and video records of student performance.
A direct measure of student skills or knowledge, usually in a one-on-one  assessment. These can be highly structured, requiring a teacher or  assessment administrator to give students specific items or tasks,  similar to regular assessments or based on student needs.
A regular assessment for a lower grade level.
Creating alignment between these assessments and the curriculum and  achievement standards, as required by NCLBA, was challenging and labor  intensive, according to officials in our study states, representatives from  national education organizations, and assessment experts. Specifically, the  curriculum should include subject matter outlined in the achievement  standards, and the alternate assessment should properly determine  whether students have mastered the standards. For example, if the  standard were to understand written English, the curriculum might  include reading and understanding grade-level text. An alternate  assessment with below grade-level standards might include a student  reading one- or two-word items and matching them to familiar people,  places, or things. Because states generally had not designed alternate  assessments nor assessed students with disabilities on academic  achievement before 2000, aligning standards with alternate assessments  was relatively new. Further, alignment was difficult because of the need to  provide a way for students with widely varying abilities to display their  achievement.
section_title: Individualized and Standardized Assessments and Reliability of Assessments
paragraphs: Further, officials explained that it can be difficult to reconcile the need to  administer individualized assessments under IDEA and the need to  provide standardized assessments under NCLBA for these students. These  concerns were also reflected in a recent report on NCLBA from a national  education organization. Specifically, standardized alternate assessments  may not be appropriate for all students who need an alternate assessment  because they may not be flexible enough to accommodate all students’  abilities. However, experts and officials noted that individualized  assessments, such as portfolios, can also present challenges. For example,  because individualized assessment approaches often rely heavily on the  participation of the person administering the assessment, that person can  affect how students demonstrate their performance. Teachers may select  work samples that demonstrate exceptional performance of their student,  even though the student does not typically perform that well.
Officials in one state told us that a team of education officials determined  that their alternate assessment needed to be more reliable in both  implementation and scoring, a sentiment shared by officials and teachers  in other states as well. Scoring in the states we studied was done by the  student’s teacher, teachers from other districts, or officials from the local  education agency. Officials in the state in which teachers score their own  students said that no independent reviews determined whether the scores  were accurate or unbiased, and teachers from two other states told us that  scores for similar portfolios sometimes varied.
section_title: Start-Up Issues and Ongoing Costs
paragraphs: A number of states used advisory committees to help them design their  alternate assessments, according to assessment experts and state officials.  These committees can be composed of experts in the field of assessment,  and they provide guidance to state officials. For example, officials in one  state told us that a series of three advisory committees helped them make  decisions about their alternate assessment, including its format. Officials  in another state told us that they met with a working group for 2 years in  preparation for assessing students with disabilities on alternate  assessments. Information reported by officials in all states to Education  for the 2003-4 school year indicated that many states are currently revising  or modifying their alternate assessments.
Officials in two of the four states also reported that they were not using  alternate assessments based on grade-level standards because they were  unaware of models that appropriately measured achievement. National  assessment and education experts said that education officials from many  states had expressed similar views. In two of the four states we studied  not using these assessments, some local officials told us that they would  like to use this assessment option.
Finally, assessment experts and state officials told us that designing and  implementing these assessments was costly for this small group of  students. They also said that there were start-up costs in addition to the  annual cost for implementation. For example, officials in one state we  studied estimated that they spent approximately $591,000 in the first year  of implementation. These costs included designing the assessment,  training teachers to administer the assessments and training scorers to  score the assessments. These officials told us that costs have decreased to  approximately $164,000 in the third year of implementation. Assessment  experts estimated that the annual cost for alternate assessments per  student ranged from $75 to $400, compared with $5 to $20 for regular  assessments. A prior GAO report similarly associated lower costs with  assessments scored by machine—a paper and pencil test with answers  marked on a bubble sheet—and greater costs for assessments scored by  people, as alternate assessments often are.
section_title: Extensive Training and Implementation Posed Challenge for Teachers
paragraphs: Teachers responsible for administering alternate assessments needed  training on the use, administration, and scoring of these assessments— which could take 2 years to 3 years plus some ongoing training—according  to federal and state officials, as well as education and assessment experts.  Assessing students with disabilities was a relatively new role for veteran  teachers and different from overseeing a classroom of students for regular  assessments during class time. In addition, new teachers needed  additional training because they had limited course work on assessment  issues in their teacher preparation programs. Assessment experts and  officials in the states we studied told us that these programs generally  provided one course in assessment, but that the course did not provide  enough training in how to administer alternate assessments, interpret  results, or use results to improve their instruction. Teachers needed to  become familiar with these assessments, including portfolio assessments,  which may involve many hours of creating, compiling, and documenting  samples of student work both during and outside of class. Further, some  ongoing refresher training was needed, particularly when alternate  assessments were modified from year to year and when teachers did not  administer alternate assessments every year.
Special education teachers also needed to learn the regular academic  curriculum and state standards upon which alternate assessments are  based. Historically, special education teachers had little exposure to this  curriculum and its associated standards because they have taught  functional skills, such as shopping independently in stores. Officials in one  state told us that their teachers faced a learning curve to become familiar  with the academic curriculum and how to create appropriate ways for  their students to access that curriculum. For example, the grade-level  curriculum might teach students to determine the meaning of unknown  words from their context for the fourth grade reading assessment. A  special education teacher would need to learn the grade-level curriculum  and then match a student’s skills with an appropriate task to demonstrate  mastery for the student’s individual level. For example, a highly  functioning special education student might demonstrate mastery by using  a dictionary to determine the meaning of unknown words. A student with  significant cognitive disabilities might demonstrate mastery by associating  a picture with a familiar object, action, or event.
Finally, despite the challenges of implementing alternate assessments,  teachers and state officials shared success stories for students with  disabilities. For example, officials who developed a guide matching grade- level and below grade-level standards told us that this investment was  worthwhile because it helped teachers become better teachers by  identifying a progression of standards for students with disabilities to  access grade-level academic curriculum. In addition, officials in some  states noted that it was valuable that special education teachers were  encouraged to teach academic curriculum to students with significant  cognitive disabilities under NCLBA. Teachers told us many stories of  student achievement, which exceeded their expectations. For example,  one teacher described teaching the difference between sweet and sour to a  student with severe and multiple disabilities. The student, after tasting  both, consistently signaled “sweet” by looking toward the sweet item  repeatedly when asked which she preferred. Experts, officials and  teachers were generally positive about raising academic expectations for  students with disabilities and attributed this directly to NCLBA.
section_title: Education Disseminated Information to States on Assessing Students with Disabilities, but Some State Officials Reported the Need for Alternate Assessment Examples
paragraphs: Education’s efforts to help states implement assessment requirements for  students with disabilities included a variety of activities. However, state  officials said that additional information, such as examples of alternate  assessments, would be helpful. We presented states’ concerns to  Education in March 2005. Education announced in May 2005 that it was  developing guidance and planned to provide comprehensive technical  assistance to states on this topic as early as the Fall of 2005. We also found  that it was difficult to locate assessment information on Education’s Web  site because there was no Web link that associated the alternate  assessment information on the site’s NCLBA section with related  information on the research, development, and use of these assessments  that is available on other sections of the site.
subsections: section_title: Education Provided Many Types of Assistance, but Officials Said Examples of Alternate Assessment Approaches Would Be Helpful
paragraphs: Education provided a broad range of assistance to help states implement  assessment requirements for students with disabilities, such as  disseminating guidance that included technical information on alternate  assessments, reviewing state assessment plans, awarding grants to help  states improve their assessment systems, and conducting on-site visits.  Further, Education has conducted outreach efforts to states to  communicate the requirements for the inclusion of students with  disabilities under NCLBA and to improve state data systems to ensure they  capture the true achievement and participation of students in these  assessments. For example, the department’s Office of Special Education  Program’ Regional Resource Centers and other technical assistance  projects have collaborated with states through teleconferences,  preconference training sessions, and by providing technical assistance  materials and resources.  Education also made extensive use of its NCLBA  Web site, newsletters, and attendance at national education-related  conferences to disseminate guidance to states on NCLBA’s assessment  requirements for all students, including students with disabilities.
The department also funded two national centers that had, as part of their  focus, the assessment of students with disabilities—the National Center on  Educational Outcomes and the National Alternate Assessment Center. The  National Center on Educational Outcomes examined the participation of  students in national and statewide assessments, including the use of  accommodations and alternate assessments and conducted research in the  area of assessment and accountability. In addition, the National Alternate  Assessment Center established principles of technical soundness for  alternate assessments and techniques for aligning alternate assessments  with grade-level content standards.
Despite Education’s efforts to assist states in this area, experts and some  state officials identified challenges in designing and implementing  alternate assessments. As noted above, many states had limited  experience with these assessments. Representatives from a national  education organization and officials in two of the four study states,  specifically the two states not using these assessments, said that they did  not know how alternate assessments that measured grade-level standards  would look, and that examples would be helpful. Further, only nine states  reported using these assessments in the 2003-04 school year. According to  Education officials, the department has made information on alternate  assessments available during preconference workshops at national  education-related conferences and through the National Center on  Educational Outcomes’ Web site. Education officials also reported that the  department participated with state officials in a group including state  officials and national education experts that discussed and researched  alternate assessments. However, information provided to state officials  often included brief descriptions of alternate assessments but not  illustrative examples to help states. In March 2005, we told Education  about states’ alternate assessment concerns. In May 2005, Education  announced additional efforts to help states use alternate assessments.  Under these efforts, which are being conducted by a department task force  and funded by $5 million from the department’s Office of Special  Education and Rehabilitative Services, Education plans to provide  comprehensive technical assistance to states that lack alternate  assessment plans as early as the fall of 2005. According to Education  officials, plans for providing assistance to states in this area were still  being developed. As a result, we were unable to review Education’s plans,  and the extent to which the department’s efforts will address states’  concerns about alternate assessments is unknown.
section_title: Information on Assessment of Students with Disabilities Not Easily Located on Education’s Web Site
paragraphs: According to Education officials, information concerning the inclusion of  students with disabilities in statewide assessments has been primarily  disseminated through the department’s Web site. Our review of  Education’s Web site, however, disclosed that certain information on the  development and use of alternate assessment for students with disabilities  was difficult to locate. For example, the NCLBA section of Education’s  Web site provided extensive information about the regulatory  requirements for alternate assessments. However, information on the  research, development, and use of these assessments was generally  accessed through a series of non-assessment-related Internet links on the  Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) section of Education’s Web  site. Moreover, there was no Web link that associated the alternate  assessment information on the NCLBA section of the Web site with related  information on the OSEP section of the Web site. In addition, accessing  alternate assessment information on the OSEP Web site was complicated  because it required the user to have a working knowledge of OSEP’s  programs, knowledge that some statewide assessment officials may not  have.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: NCLBA seeks to make fundamental changes in public education by  challenging federal, state, and local education officials to improve student  performance. In particular, NCLBA focused attention on the academic  performance of all students, requiring that the performance of groups,  such as students with disabilities, be considered in determining whether  schools meet state goals. IDEA has also emphasized the importance of  assessing the academic achievement of students with disabilities.  Education has provided much guidance to states on how to include  students with disabilities in statewide assessment systems. Despite their  efforts, some state and local officials as well as national organization  representatives reported they lacked alternate assessment examples or  models, particularly at grade-level standards, and were uncertain about  how to design and implement them. This uncertainty may have  contributed to some states not using alternate assessments with grade- level standards. As a result, some students with disabilities may not have  been provided the most appropriate type of assessment to measure their  achievement. In May 2005, Education announced additional efforts to help  states use alternate assessments. According to Education officials, plans  for providing assistance to states in this area were still being developed.  As a result, we were unable to review Education’s plans, and the extent to  which the department’s effort will address states’ concerns about alternate  assessments is unknown.
Given that Education has relied heavily on its Web site to provide  information on assessing children with disabilities and our finding that this  information was not very accessible, the effectiveness of this  communication may be limited. As a result, state and local officials may  not have all the necessary information available to guide decisions about  appropriately including students with disabilities in statewide  assessments.
Finally, NCLBA requires that students, including those with disabilities,  periodically participate in the NAEP to gain a national picture of student  achievement. Although most students with disabilities participated in the  NAEP, the percent of students who were excluded from the assessment  varied across the states. Consequently, the results of this assessment may  not fully reflect student achievement, thus comparisons of student  achievement across states may have limitations.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Education take the following two  actions to increase the participation of students with disabilities in  assessments.
We recommend that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make the  information on the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide  assessments more accessible to users of its Web site. Specifically,  information on the NCLBA section of Education’s Web site concerning  alternate assessment requirements for students with disabilities should be  linked to information on the research, development, and use of these  assessments that is available on other sections of Education’s Web site.
Finally, we recommend that the Secretary of Education work with states,  particularly those with high exclusion rates, to explore strategies to  reduce the number of students with disabilities who are excluded from the  NAEP assessment.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.  In their letter, Education officials noted that they were taking actions that  would address the recommendations in this report.  For example, in  response to the first recommendation, the department will explore the use  of “hot buttons” and links among the Web pages maintained by different  Education offices to further increase access to information regarding the  assessment of students with disabilities.   Similarly, in response to the  second recommendation, Education officials acknowledged that there is  still much work to be done in increasing the participation and inclusion  rates of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment.  As part of this  effort, the department is exploring strategies for enhancing the inclusion  of students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment.
We have also included some additional information the department  provided to us on outreach and technical assistance efforts on the  assessment of students with disabilities and how students with disabilities  participated in the NAEP.  Education officials also provided technical  comments that we incorporated into the report where appropriate.   Education’s written comments are reproduced in appendix II.
Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of Education, relevant  congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make  copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be  made available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me  on (202)512-7215 or at shaulm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Other contacts and major contributors are listed in  appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in State Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year, by State
paragraphs: Did not provide usable data  Sum of the number of students with disabilities participating in the three different types of reading  assessments was greater than figure the state provided for the total number of students participating  in reading assessments.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Harriet Ganson (Assistant Director) and Arthur T. Merriam Jr. (Analyst-in- Charge) managed all aspects of the assignment.  Katharine Leavitt and  Scott Spicer made significant contributions to this report, in all aspects of  the work.  In addition, Sheranda Campbell contributed to the initial design  of the assignment, Carolyn Boyce provided technical support, Daniel  Schwimer provided legal support, and Scott Heacock assisted in the  message and report development.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Charter Schools: To Enhance Education's Monitoring and Research,  More Charter School-Level Data Are Needed. GAO-05-5. Washington, D.C.:  January 12, 2005.
No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements Needed in Education's Process  for Tracking States' Implementation of Key Provisions. GAO-04-734.  Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: Additional Assistance and Research on  Effective Strategies Would Help Small Rural Districts. GAO-04-909.  Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2004.
Special Education: Additional Assistance and Better Coordination  Needed among Education Offices to Help States Meet the NCLBA Teacher  Requirements. GAO-04-659. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2004.
No Child Left Behind Act: More Information Would Help States  Determine Which Teachers Are Highly Qualified. GAO-03-631.  Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2003.
Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses; Information  Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies. GAO-03-389. Washington,  D.C.: May 8, 2003.