Erin D. Lomax
Analyst in Education Policy
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108-446) both require all students with disabilities to participate in district and state assessments. Because student achievement on state assessments is used to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in state accountability systems mandated by NCLB, schools are now held accountable for the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities. The authorization for NCLB expired at the end of FY2008, and the 111th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. One focus of reauthorization may be reexamining how students with disabilities are included in accountability systems.
The current NCLB focus on accountability for the achievement of students with disabilities has led educators, administrators, and policymakers to reexamine the appropriateness of the general state assessment for measuring the achievement of certain students with disabilities. Although many students with disabilities are able to participate in the general state assessment, either with or without accommodations, other students with disabilities may not be able to participate fully in the general state assessment because of the nature and severity of their disability. These students may need an alternate assessment that is tailored to their needs and allows them to more accurately demonstrate what they know and can do.
There are currently five assessment options for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities: (1) general state assessment, (2) general state assessment with accommodations, (3) alternate assessment based on grade-level standards, (4) alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), and (5) alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). The first three assessment options (general state assessment, general state assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment based on grade-level standards) result in scores that may be counted in AYP calculations in the typical manner, as determined by a state’s accountability system. Scores from the second two assessment options (AA-AAS and AAMAS) have restrictions on the way they may be counted in AYP calculations. These restrictions are outlined in regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and have numerous implications for state accountability systems.
The purpose of this report is to describe the ED regulations that allow states to use scores from alternate assessments for AYP calculations in accountability systems. This report also describes the current status of state implementation of alternate assessments and examines some of the challenges states have encountered in developing and implementing these assessments. The final section of this report discusses other policy proposals for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities and including them in accountability systems.
Date of Report: January 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R40701
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Analyst in Education Policy
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108-446) both require all students with disabilities to participate in district and state assessments. Because student achievement on state assessments is used to determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in state accountability systems mandated by NCLB, schools are now held accountable for the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities. The authorization for NCLB expired at the end of FY2008, and the 111th Congress is expected to consider whether to amend and extend the ESEA. One focus of reauthorization may be reexamining how students with disabilities are included in accountability systems.
The current NCLB focus on accountability for the achievement of students with disabilities has led educators, administrators, and policymakers to reexamine the appropriateness of the general state assessment for measuring the achievement of certain students with disabilities. Although many students with disabilities are able to participate in the general state assessment, either with or without accommodations, other students with disabilities may not be able to participate fully in the general state assessment because of the nature and severity of their disability. These students may need an alternate assessment that is tailored to their needs and allows them to more accurately demonstrate what they know and can do.
There are currently five assessment options for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities: (1) general state assessment, (2) general state assessment with accommodations, (3) alternate assessment based on grade-level standards, (4) alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), and (5) alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). The first three assessment options (general state assessment, general state assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment based on grade-level standards) result in scores that may be counted in AYP calculations in the typical manner, as determined by a state’s accountability system. Scores from the second two assessment options (AA-AAS and AAMAS) have restrictions on the way they may be counted in AYP calculations. These restrictions are outlined in regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and have numerous implications for state accountability systems.
The purpose of this report is to describe the ED regulations that allow states to use scores from alternate assessments for AYP calculations in accountability systems. This report also describes the current status of state implementation of alternate assessments and examines some of the challenges states have encountered in developing and implementing these assessments. The final section of this report discusses other policy proposals for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities and including them in accountability systems.
Date of Report: January 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: R40701
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
