History

This section includes information about both NCEO’s history and the policy history of the inclusion of students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities in assessments.

NCEO History

Established in 1990, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) began as a research and technical assistance center focused on identifying important outcomes for students with disabilities. Early findings showed these students were often excluded from large-scale academic assessments, prompting NCEO to advocate systems that included all students based on universal design principles.

Over time, the center’s work has expanded to include students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities, while also broadening its focus to address accessibility across all types of assessments—formative, classroom-based, diagnostic, interim, and summative. NCEO continues to provide national leadership in improving assessment access, advocating for appropriate accommodations, and ensuring that results for these student groups are reported and used in accountability systems similar to other students.

As its work has evolved, the center has played a foundational role in shaping national policy and practice related to assessment systems. This includes extensive research and guidance on two key areas: the use of testing accommodations and the development of alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS).

For a closer look at NCEO’s contributions in these areas, explore the following resources:

NCEO’s directors have included:

  • Dr. Robert Bruininks (1990-1991)
  • Dr. James Ysseldyke (1991-1999)
  • Dr. Martha Thurlow (1999–2019)
  • Dr. Sheryl Lazarus (2019–2024)
  • Co-directors Dr. Kristin Kline Liu and Mr. Andrew Hinkle (2024–present)

Policy History

Federal legislation has driven major advances in the inclusion of students with disabilities and English learners in large-scale assessments. All linked resources below direct readers to NCEO-developed topic pages and publications.

  • 1994 (Elementary and Secondary Education Act–ESEA; known as the Improving America’s Schools Act or IASA): Required the inclusion of all students in state and district assessments.
  • 1997 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – IDEA): Required all students with disabilities to participate in assessments and called for the development of alternate assessments for those unable to take general assessments.
  • 2002 (No Child Left Behind Act – NCLB; reauthorization of ESEA): Added accountability measures for Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Required English learners to take assessments aligned with academic content standards and introduced a new requirement for English language proficiency (ELP) assessments.
  • 2004 (IDEA Reauthorization): Reinforced NCLB expectations. Schools were required to include all students, report their participation and performance, and ensure accountability.
  • Post-2004: Federal regulations allowed students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to be counted as proficient for AYP through performance on an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). Regulations also permitted the use of alternate assessments based on grade-level standards (AA-GLAS).
  • 2007–2014: Some states implemented the alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS), but the federal regulations permitting AA-MAS were rescinded in 2015.
  • 2014 (Results Driven Accountability): The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) required states to submit State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs), many of which used academic achievement data as the State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR).
  • 2015 (Every Student Succeeds Act – ESSA; reauthorization of ESEA): Continued the inclusion of students with disabilities and English learners in accountability systems. ESSA eliminated supergroups and required separate subgroup reporting. It introduced a 1% cap on the number of students in a local education agency who could be counted as proficient on the AA-AAAS and allowed students assessed with the AA-AAAS to count in graduation rates if they earned a state-defined alternate diploma that met federal criteria.

These policy shifts have reinforced expectations that all students—regardless of disability or English language proficiency—participate in meaningful, inclusive assessments.