Resources
Search Filters
Search Results
- Selected filters():
NCEO Synthesis Reports: 2003 State Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations for Students with Disabilities (#56)This year 2005 report analyzes states' 2003 participation and accommodation policies. Authors found that these policies continue to become more detailed compared to previous years. Key findings from this analysis include: (1) Clarifications and specifications attached to specific accommodations in state policies--especially those with implications for resulting scores--are increasing, (2) States are providing guidance to readers, scribes, and sign language interpreters--as well as direction for IEP teams--on the process for using accommodations that are not on an approved list, (3), The number of states permitting the use of accommodations for all students is increasing, and (4) The most controversial accommodations continue to be read aloud (questions), calculator, spellchecker, and proctor/scribe. The authors note that the analysis did not attempt to determine the degree to which state policies complied with federal requirements under IDEA or NCLB.
Published: June 2005
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Measuring Academic Achievement of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Building Understanding of Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria (#50)This year 2003 report, compares and contrasts the assumptions and values embedded in scoring criteria used in five states for their alternate assessments. It discusses how the selected states are addressed the challenge of defining successful outcomes for students with significant disabilities as reflected in state criteria for scoring alternate assessment responses or evidence and how these definitions of successful outcomes have been refined over time. The five states use different alternate assessment approaches, including portfolio assessment, performance assessment, IEP linked body of evidence, and traditional test formats. Findings showed a great deal of overlap across the alternate assessment approaches, as they tended to represent a continuum of approaches as opposed to discrete categories.
Published: June 2003
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Massachusetts: One State's Approach to Setting Performance Levels on the Alternate Assessment (#48)This year 2002 report describes Massachusetts' approach to setting performance levels on its Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) Alternate Assessment. The state's portfolio approach was based on "expanded" state standards describing academic outcomes appropriate for students with significant disabilities. The report explains the technical phase of standard setting and describes the context of earlier conversations and theoretical debates that came before their decisions in the development process of the alternate assessment. The report further describes how performance levels were calibrated between the alternate and general assessments, due to the alternate being used for high school diploma requirements, and the ways performance levels in each strand were combined to produce an overall performance level.
Published: November 2002
NCEO Synthesis Reports: 2001 State Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations (#46)Formats: OnlineThis year 2001 report analyzes state participation and accommodation policies nationwide. Among the major findings are: (1) participation options beyond the usual three (participation without accommodations, participation with accommodations, alternate assessment) have become more evident -- generally these are: partial participation, additional alternate assessments, and out-of-level testing, (2)"emotional anxiety" is more frequently noted as a reason for students to not participate in assessments, (3) policies for both participation and accommodations are becoming more specific, often indicating implications for how accommodated students' scores are reported, (4) the number of states that allow accommodations for specific groups (i.e., all students and students no longer on IEPs), and (5) that most controversial accommodations continue to be read aloud, calculator, and scribe. The analyses suggest that states continued to adjust their policies to ensure that students with disabilities have opportunities to participate in statewide assessments, and at the same time to understand the meaning of the scores from their assessments.
Published: July 2002
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Access to Computer-Based Testing for Students with Disabilities (#45)This year 2002 report recommends a five step process for the transformation of paper and pencil tests to computer-based tests based on an overview of the opportunities and challenges of computer-based testing and a presentation of research findings and accommodation considerations. This process assumes that the principles of universally designed assessments have been followed and include the following five steps: (1) assemble a group of experts to guide the transformation, (2) decide how each accommodation will be incorporated into the computer-based test, (3) Consider each accommodation or assessment feature in light of the constructs being tested, (4) consider the feasibility of incorporating the accommodation into the computer-based test, and (5) consider training implications for staff and students. Authors also make initial considerations for common accommodations within the categories of timing/scheduling, presentation, response, and setting.
Published: June 2002
NCEO Technical Reports: Read-Aloud Accommodations: Effects on Multiple-Choice Reading and Math Items (#31)Formats: OnlineThis year 2001 report examines the effect of a read aloud accommodation on the state reading and math assessments used by the Missouri assessment program. The study used extant test administration data for multiple-choice math and reading test items administered to 3rd and 4th grade students. Four student groups were created to help control for confounding effects. A differential item function (DIF) analysis was run on the data using BILOG-MG, which compared item difficulty estimates across several groups simultaneously. The findings lead to a discussion of how to determine who should benefit from an accommodation, and whether a reading test measures the reading construct differently for students with a reading disability than for students without disabilities. The report recommends further research and suggests that replicating the study is needed to confirm the results.
Published: September 2001
NCEO Technical Reports: Matching Information in National Data Collection Programs to a Model of Post-School Outcomes and Indicators (#17)Formats: PDFThis year 1995 report describes the extent of correspondence between information available on indicators for post-school outcomes in national data collection programs and the post-school outcomes in a model developed by the National Center on Educational Outcomes and partnering stakeholders. Findings include: 1) a summary of post-school outcomes for all students represented in ten national data collection programs, 2) the observation that these outcomes are less available for students with disabilities than indicators at the school completion level, and 3) the conclusion that there is a significant exclusion or lack of identification of students with disabilities in national data programs. Recommendations are provided to revise national data collection programs in order to produce useful policy-relevant information regarding post-school completion outcomes for students with disabilities.
Published: October 1995- NCEO Reports: Universal Design and K-12 Academic Assessments: A Scoping Review of the Literature (#442)
This report summarizes an investigation of literature published in 1985-2023 on universal design (UD) of large-scale assessments. State education agencies, K-12 assessment vendors, teacher trainers, and classroom teachers are increasingly applying the principles of UD to the instruction and assessment of students from special populations. In theory, UD ensures that instruction and assessment are created from the beginning to be accessible to the widest population of students possible. Yet, it is unclear how these UD frameworks and their associated principles and elements are being applied, or even which UD framework is used. This obscurity and lack of defined UD principles in the research literature creates obstacles in research replication and in identification of evidence-based practices. This scoping review identifies how the concept of UD has been applied to the broad range of U.S. district and state large-scale academic assessments. We included literature on the application of UD to the broad range of K-12 district and state large-scale academic assessments in the U.S.
Published: February 2024 - NCEO Data Analytics: Number and Percentage of English Learners with Disabilities by Disability Category, 2012-13 to 2020-21 (#18)Formats: Online
This interactive report presents information on the percentage of students with disabilities ages 6-21 who are also English learners (i.e., English learners with disabilities), and the proportion of these students by category for school years 2012-13 and 2020-21. English learners with disabilities are students who receive special education services as indicated in an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and who are also developing English proficiency. The U.S. Department of education receives data from states on the number of these students in each of 13 disability categories, and the number and percentage of English learners with disabilities varies over time, by category, and by state. The data in this report allow users to view one or more disability categories for comparison, and provides data by state.
Published: March 2023 - NCEO Reports: The Role of Assessment Data in State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs): An Analysis of FFY 2018 SSIPs (#425)
This report presents the findings of an analysis of states’ FFY 2018 State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs), submitted to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in April 2020. It specifically addresses how assessments were included in states’ State-Identified Measurable Results (SIMRs). For states with assessment-related SIMRs, SSIP evaluation plans were also analyzed to see how assessments were being used for evaluation and reporting. The SSIPs for both regular states (e.g., Alabama, Wyoming, etc.) and unique states (e.g., Guam, Federated States of Micronesia, etc.) were analyzed. As part of OSEP’s new federal accountability framework, Results Driven Accountability (RDA), states are required to develop an SSIP, which is a comprehensive, multi-year plan designed to improve outcomes for children with disabilities, and within this plan, to commit to improving a SIMR focused on student outcomes. Many, but not all states, specified SIMRs that use assessment data as the outcome measure.
Published: February 2021 
NCEO Reports: 2015-16 High School Assessment Accommodations Policies: An Analysis of ACT, SAT, PARCC, and Smarter Balanced (#403)This report provides a snapshot of how accommodations were included in policies across ACT, SAT, Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), and Smarter Balanced during the 2015-16 school year. As required by federal and state legislation, all students, including students with disabilities and English learners (ELs), participate in state assessments used for accountability. Some states use assessments developed by consortia of states. States also are required to ensure that graduating students are college- and career-ready (CCR). Some states use state-administrations of the ACT or SAT as their measure of CCR. Many students with disabilities and ELs use accessibility features and accommodations to access each of these assessments. This report also analyzes differences in the accessibility framework, decision-making process, and terminology across the four assessments.
Published: July 2016
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Science Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS) During School Year 2014-2015 (#99)A report that analyzes the characteristics of states' science alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) in 2014-2015. Federal law requires that all students, including students with disabilities, participate in state assessments used for accountability purposes. It also requires states to assess students in several content areas, including science. Most students with disabilities take the general science assessment with or without accommodations, but a few students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participate in AA-AAS. Although federal regulations do allow states to define the complexity, depth, and breadth of the AA-AAS, the apparent lack of consistency in the domains assessed suggests that some students with significant cognitive disabilities may not be getting access to the same rigorous grade-appropriate content.
Published: November 2015
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Graduation Policies for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities Who Participate in States' AA-AAS (#97)A report analyzing the graduation requirements and diploma options for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who participate in states' alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). The authors found that nearly 70% of states' policies indicated that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who participate in the AA-AAS can receive a regular diploma. The criteria for doing so in these states were extremely varied, from those that have the exact same requirements to those that allow the IEP team to set the criteria. In states with policies that indicated that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who participate in the AA-AAS could not receive a regular diploma, all but one state indicated that other end-of-school documents (e.g., certificates, special diplomas) were available to these students. The information the authors found and that was provided during the verification process provides important information for the field. Their findings should provide a basis for discussions within states as they consider their policies in light of college and career readiness imperatives.
Published: 2014
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Earning a High School Diploma through Alternative Routes (#76)A report based on a study examining the alternative routes to passing the high school exit exam that were available during the school year 2008-09 to students to earn a standard high school diploma. It examines alternative routes in the 26 states with active or soon-to-be active exit exams, and documents the alternative routes available for all students and those specifically for students with disabilities. Earning a standard diploma has increased in importance during the past several years. Not only is it a document that improves postschool outcomes, but it also has become a part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) accountability system at the high school level--with the required graduation rate including only those students who have earned a regular/standard high school diploma or higher. Complicating matters in several states is the addition of an exit exam requirement to the traditional coursework requirements. The addition of a testing requirement to other requirements for earning a standard diploma is a challenge for students who do not perform well on assessments. Many, but not all, of these students have disabilities.
Published: June 2010
NCEO Synthesis Reports: High Stakes Graduation Exams: The Intended and Unintended Consequences of Minnesota's Basic Standards Tests for Students with Disabilities (#62)This year 2006 report examines the intended and unintended consequences of Minnesota's high stakes graduation exam on students with disabilities through focus group data and interviews. The study included focus groups included parents of students with disabilities, special educators from six schools in two large urban and suburban school districts, and member of the Minnesota Association of educational Assessment and Evaluation, and interviews from building administrators, school district representatives, and a state representative. Findings include a combination of positive and negative consequences such as increasing exposure to curriculum, increased participation in testing, raising expectations, high levels of anxiety and frustration, and drop-out concerns among other findings. The author concludes that further studies are needed to document empirically whether these consequences are occurring for students with disabilities.
Published: August 2006
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Progress Monitoring in an Inclusive Standards-Based Assessment and Accountability System (#53)This year 2004 report describes how progress monitoring--a set of techniques for assessing student performance on a regular and frequent basis--can be an essential and integral part of an inclusive standards-based assessment and accountability system This report discusses contextual challenges that affect its implementation for students with disabilities including: historical limited access to challenging curriculum, instruction, and assessment; concerns about the target of measurement (i.e., only basic skills or a full range of challenging content); and limited use of data for effective provision of instructional strategies, interventions, and supports. Further, the authors discuss the benefits and uses of progress monitoring methods and formative data sources in four general categories: (1) Curriculum-Based Measurement; (2) Classroom assessments (system or teacher-developed); (3) Adaptive assessments; and (4) Large-scale assessments used during the year to monitor growth of individual students and groups of students. Several recommendations for practice are also offered.
Published: February 2004
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Recommendations for Making Decisions About the Participation of Students with Disabilities in Statewide Assessment Programs: A Report on a Working Conference to Develop Guidelines for Statewide Assessments and Students with Disabilities (#15)Formats: PDFThis report is a summary of a meeting held in the Washington, DC area on May 17 and 18, 1994. The purpose of the meeting was to: (1) Discuss participation of students with disabilities in state assessment programs, (2) Discuss adaptations in assessments or assessment procedures to accommodate students with disabilities, (3) Attempt to arrive at agreement on a reasonable set of practices in making participation and accommodation decisions, and (4) Identify major technical and implementation issues that might be part of state or federal research agendas on participation and accommodations in assessment programs. This report proposes a set of recommendations for making participation and accommodation decisions, and indicate the fundamental assumptions that underlie participation of students with disabilities in state assessment programs. We describe the rational for the development of a consistent system for making decisions about participation and accommodations in state assessment programs.
Published: July 1994
NCEO Technical Reports: An Evaluation of the Extent to Which Teachers Used the "IEP Quality Tutorial-South Dakota" After Training (#63)A report discussing the use of the "IEP Quality Tutorial-South Dakota (IEPQ-SD)." During the 2010-2011 school year, the state of South Dakota piloted an online program called the "IEP Quality Tutorial-South Dakota (IEPQ-SD)". IEPQ-SD was designed to support the implementation of standards-based IEPs in schools throughout the state. Forty-nine educators in South Dakota participated in training on the IEPQ-SD tool, and they were then given access to the tool so that they could use it in their work with IEPs. This report presents the results of an evaluation of the extent to which teachers used IEPQ-SD after training, and their reactions to it. Interviews were conducted with five of the training participants approximately six months after the training session to learn about educator perceptions of the training, how their work with IEPs has been affected by the training, and how student experiences have been affected by the training. They were also asked what the educators liked about the training and what could be improved for future trainings, and if and how participants thought the IEPQ-SD tool should be rolled out to other educators in South Dakota.
Published: April 2012
NCEO Synthesis Reports: Large-Scale Assessment and Accountability Systems: Positive Consequences for Students with Disabilities (#51)This 2004 report examines both empirical and anecdotal evidence for positive consequences of large-scale high-stakes assessments for students with disabilities. The analysis uses multiple methodologies to gather data on positive consequences: a qualitative media survey, an environmental scan of State Special Education Directors, a focus group, and a national survey on state assessment practices. Primary findings show these positive consequences for students with disabilities found consistently across all methodologies: increased participation of students with disabilities in testing programs, higher expectations and standards, improved instruction, and improved performance. Secondary findings found in fewer sources are as follows: improved assessments, improved diploma options, decreased dropout rates, and increased collaboration and communication between parents and special education and general education teachers. The authors discuss the limitations of the study, and address it as a starting point for further research. Overall, the findings suggest that large-scale high stakes assessments can have intended and unintended positive consequences for students with disabilities.
Published: May 2004
NCEO Technical Reports: Where's Waldo? A Third Search for Students with Disabilities in State Accountability Reports (#25)This year 2000 report analyzes state education reports to determine what types of information are provided on students with disabilities. It is the third such study conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes, and was based on 170 reports from state accountability offices and state special education offices. Findings reported include the following: (1) despite IDEA requirements for public reporting of assessment participation and performance data for students with disabilities, only 14 states included participation data and 17 states included performance data for students with disabilities in state assessments, (2) participation levels varied from 33% to 97% of students with disabilities, and (3) information on performance levels varied widely. The report presents several recommendations to states. These include the need for states to indicate how they will move toward meeting IDEA requirements for reporting data on students with disabilities, to consider how best to present these data to avoid unintended consequences, and to ensure an accounting of participation data for each performance score that is reported.
Published: April 2000