No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities	 
Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options	 
Could Be Improved (20-JUL-05, GAO-05-618).			 
                                                                 
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.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-618 					        
    ACCNO:   A30418						        
  TITLE:     No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities
Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options	 
Could Be Improved						 
     DATE:   07/20/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Aid for education					 
	     Children with disabilities 			 
	     Data collection					 
	     Education program evaluation			 
	     Educational standards				 
	     Educational testing				 
	     Federal aid programs				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Learning disabilities				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Special education					 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     Students						 
	     Assessments					 
	     Developmental disabilities 			 
	     Education law					 
	     Department of Education National			 
	     Assessment of Educational Progress 		 
                                                                 
	     Florida						 
	     Iowa						 
	     Massachusetts					 
	     Oregon						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-618

     

     * NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT
     * Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide As
     * Contents
          * Results in Brief
               * Background
               * Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Re
                    * Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Reading
                      Asse
                    * Most Students with Disabilities Were Included in
                      Regular Rea
                    * Massachusetts and Oregon Used Innovative Approaches to
                      Asses
                    * Nationwide 5 Percent of Students with Disabilities Are
                      Exclu
               * States Faced Challenges in Designing and Preparing Teachers
                    * National Education Organizations and Some State
                      Officials Re
                         * Widely Varying Abilities of Students with
                           Disabilities
                         * Design Process Took Time
                         * Individualized and Standardized Assessments and
                           Reliability
                         * Start-Up Issues and Ongoing Costs
                    * Extensive Training and Implementation Posed Challenge
                      for Te
               * Education Disseminated Information to States on Assessing St
                    * Education Provided Many Types of Assistance, but
                      Officials S
                    * Information on Assessment of Students with Disabilities
                      Not
               * Conclusions
               * Recommendations for Executive Action
               * Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
          * Appendix I: Percent of Students with Disabilities Participat
          * Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education
          * Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
          * Related GAO Products
               * Order by Mail or Phone

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

July 2005

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but
Inclusion Options Could Be Improved

Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special
Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education
Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments
Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special
Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education
Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments
Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special
Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education
Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments
Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special
Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education
Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments
Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special
Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education
Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments
Special Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special
Education Assessments Special Education Assessments Special Education
Assessments

GAO-05-618

The information contained in this report has been updated in GAO-06-194R ,
dated October 28, 2005.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-05-618 .

To view the full product, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Marnie S. Shaul at (202) 512-7215 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-05-618 , a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate

July 2005

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but
Inclusion Options Could Be Improved

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.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Education explore ways to make information about
inclusion of students with disabilities more accessible on its Web site
and 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. In comments, Education officials
noted that they were taking actions that would address our
recommendations.

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.

Participation Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04 School
Year for Students with Disabilities

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.

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2
Background 4
Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Reading
Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year 8
States Faced Challenges in Designing and Preparing Teachers to Administer
Alternate Assessments 19
Education Disseminated Information to States on Assessing Students with
Disabilities, but Some State Officials Reported the Need for Alternate
Assessment Examples 24
Conclusions 27
Recommendations for Executive Action 28
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28
Appendix I Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in State
Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year, by State 30
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Education 33
Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37
Related GAO Products 38

Tables

Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards 7
Table 2: Massachusetts' Data on How Students with Different Types of
Disabilities Were Included in Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04
School Year 14
Table 3: Accommodations Provided in Some Regular Statewide Assessments but
Not for NAEP 18
Table 4. Selected Alternate Assessments Used in Study States and
Descriptions 20

Figures

Figure 1: Distribution of State and the District of Columbia Participation
Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year 10
Figure 2: Distribution of States and the District of Columbia by the
Percentages of Students with Disabilities Who Received Alternate
Assessments Measuring Grade-Level and Below Grade-Level Standards in the
2003-04 School Year 13
Figure 3: Example of How a Below Grade-Level Standard Differs in
Complexity from a Grade-Level Standard 15

Abbreviations

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IEP Individualized Education Program

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

July 20, 2005

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Ranking Minority Member Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions United States Senate

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.1 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.

1 The term below grade-level standards refers to alternate achievement
standards.

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.2 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.

                                Results in Brief

Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading
assessments in the 2003-04 school year, according to data collected by
Education. Of the 48 reporting states and the District of Columbia, 41
states reported that at least 95 percent of students with disabilities
participated in the statewide reading assessment. The remaining states and
the District of Columbia reported lower participation rates. Two states
did not provide participation rate data for students with disabilities in
a usable format. State participation rates for students with disabilities
were generally similar to participation rates for all students. Most
students with disabilities took regular reading assessments, and
relatively few students with disabilities took alternate assessments. Two
of the four states that we visited, Massachusetts and Oregon, used
innovative approaches to measure the performance of students with
disabilities, according to special education experts. For example,
Massachusetts used an alternate assessment that lets students with widely
varying abilities demonstrate their understanding of the same content
standards. Nationwide, about 5 percent of students with disabilities were
excluded from the NAEP reading assessment. Because states had different
exclusion rates, ranging from 2 percent to 10 percent in the 2002 NAEP,
comparisons of student achievement across states may have limitations.

2 To assess the reliability of the reading data, we contacted all 50
states plus the District of Columbia to confirm and clarify the data
provided. We corrected identified reporting errors and determined that the
resulting data set was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
report. The 2003-04 school year was the first year for which states were
asked to report on the participation rate of students with disabilities in
statewide assessments.

State officials reported that providing alternate assessments was
challenging, particularly because of the time and expertise required to
design such assessments and the training necessary for teachers to
implement them. National experts and officials in the four states we
studied told us that designing and implementing alternate assessments that
measured achievement of students with disabilities was difficult for a
number of reasons, including these students' widely varying abilities.
Officials in two site-visit states also reported that they were not using
alternate assessments based on grade-level standards because officials
were unaware of models of such assessments that appropriately measured
achievement. In addition, national experts and officials told us that
teachers needed training over a period of 2 to 3 years to administer
alternate assessments properly. Teachers we spoke with told us that
learning the skills to administer an alternate assessment was
time-consuming, as was administering the assessment.

Education provided support to states on including students with
disabilities in statewide assessments through actions such as
disseminating guidance, reviewing state assessment plans, awarding grants
to help states improve their assessment systems, and conducting on-site
visits. In assisting states, Education made extensive use of its NCLBA Web
site, newsletters, and presentations at national education conferences to
disseminate information on the requirements for including students with
disabilities in statewide assessments. 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. However, a number of state
education officials told us that some specific information on how
alternate assessments based on grade-level standards could be used
appropriately to assess students with disabilities was lacking. Further,
representatives from a national education organization said that many
states were unfamiliar with models of this type and that examples would be
helpful. In addition, we found that Education's regulations and clarifying
information did not provide illustrative examples of what alternate
assessments looked like and how they have been used to appropriately
assess students with disabilities using grade-level or below grade-level
standards. During our review, we told Education about states' alternate
assessment concerns. In May 2005, Education announced additional efforts
to help states use alternate assessments. As part of this effort,
Education plans to develop training materials and provide comprehensive
technical assistance to states that lack alternate assessment plans for
students with disabilities. In addition, our review of Education's Web
site disclosed that information on certain topics related to the
assessment of students with disabilities was difficult to locate. For
example, there was no Web link that associated the alternate assessment
information on the NCLBA section of the Web site with related information
on the research, development, and use of these assessments that is
available on other sections of Education's Web site.

We are recommending that the Secretary of Education explore ways to make
information about inclusion of students with disabilities more accessible
on Education's Web site and 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.

In comments on a draft of this report, Education officials noted that they
were taking actions that would address the recommendations in this report.
According to Education officials, the department will explore the use of
"hot buttons" and links among the Web pages maintained by different
Education offices and explore strategies for enhancing the inclusion of
students with disabilities in the NAEP assessment.

                                   Background

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.3 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.4 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 disabilities5 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.

3 NCLBA's focus on improving academic achievement for all students,
including those with disabilities, has led to changes in what is taught to
students with disabilities. For example, special education teachers
historically taught their students a primarily functional curriculum.
Students with significant cognitive disabilities learned, for example, how
to tie their shoes and how to shop in stores independently rather than
strictly academic content.

4 In order to account for changes in participation numbers, Education
allows schools to average their assessment results and participation rates
over a period of up to 3 years.

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 program6 (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.

5 And English language learners.

6 The term individualized education program refers to a written statement
that is developed for each student with a disability that specifies, among
other components, the services that a student will receive, the extent to
which the student will participate in the regular education setting with
nondisabled peers, and how the student will participate in statewide
assessments.

Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards

Assessment type         Achievement standard Example                       
Regular assessment      Grade-Level          Paper and pencil assessment,  
without accommodations                       i.e., the same assessment     
                                                that students without         
                                                disabilities take             
Regular assessment with Grade-Level          Paper and pencil assessment   
accommodations                               with extended time for        
                                                test-taking; small group or   
                                                individual setting            
Alternate assessment    Grade-Level or below Portfolio showing samples of  
                           grade-level          student work                  

Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes.

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.7

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.

Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Statewide Reading Assessments in
                            the 2003-04 School Year

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.

7 Education has offered to raise the 1-percent limit on the number of
students who can be counted as meeting state achievement goals using below
grade-level standards if a state demonstrates that it has a larger
population of students with the most severe cognitive disabilities. For
example, the limit has been raised for two states, Ohio and Virginia, to
between 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent. For information on Education's policy
regarding the inclusion of students in alternate assessments, see U.S.
Department of Education, The Achiever, Jan. 15, 2004.
http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/achiever/2004/011504.html .

Most Students with Disabilities Participated in Reading Assessments, and
Participation Rates Were Similar to Those of Nondisabled Students

Most students with disabilities participated in statewide reading
assessments in the 2003-04 school year according to state reports to
Education.8 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.

8 Data from three states that we visited showed that the participation of
students with disabilities in statewide mathematics assessments was
similar to their participation in reading assessments.

Figure 1: Distribution of State and the District of Columbia Participation
Rates on Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year

Note: Two states did not provide data on students with disabilities in a
usable format, and one of these states did not provide data for all
students in a usable format.

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.

Most Students with Disabilities Were Included in Regular Reading Assessments,
and Relatively Few Were Included through Alternate Assessments

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.9 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.

9 During a January 2005 monitoring visit, Education found that Texas
included students in these assessments in a manner that was inconsistent
with NCLBA regulations. Texas administered alternate assessments to
students with disabilities who were performing below grade level, whether
or not the student was significantly cognitively disabled. Education found
that, although Texas alternate assessments measure content that is below
grade level, the state has not developed standards for these assessments.
Education also found that Texas allowed districts to exceed the 1 percent
limit on students with disabilities who could be counted as having met
state achievement goals with these assessments.

Figure 2: Distribution of States and the District of Columbia by the
Percentages of Students with Disabilities Who Received Alternate
Assessments Measuring Grade-Level and Below Grade-Level Standards in the
2003-04 School Year

Note: Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia offered alternate
reading assessments that measured below grade-level standards and nine
states offered alternate assessments that measured grade-level standards.
Only these states are included in this figure. Mississippi's alternate
assessment measuring alternate standards was included in the 10-19
category.

We examined data in Florida and Massachusetts to determine the
relationship between the disability and type of assessment used.10 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.

10 These data were not available for the other states we visited and were
not available nationally.

Table 2: Massachusetts' Data on How Students with Different Types of
Disabilities Were Included in Statewide Reading Assessments in the 2003-04
School Year

                           English/Language arts (tested in grades 3, 4, 7,
                                                  10)
                                                                    Alternate 
                                                                assessment at 
                                                        Regular   grade level 
                                        Regular assessment with      or below 
Disability Type        Enrollment assessment  accommodations   grade level 
Intellectual                4,046         4%             66%           28% 
Sensory/Hearing               327        10%             81%            8% 
Communication               5,659        21%             77%            1% 
Sensory/Vision                135        12%             78%           10% 
Emotional                   4,126        10%             85%            2% 
Physical                      310        33%             58%            8% 
Health                      2,145        10%             88%            1% 
Specific learning          24,979         9%             90%            1% 
Sensory/Deaf-Blindness        102         6%             68%           25% 
Multiple disabilities       1,504         6%             61%           31% 
Autism                      1,272         6%             53%           40% 
Neurological                1,513        11%             83%            5% 
Developmental delay         1,648        13%             76%           10% 

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education.

Note: Massachusetts data did not show whether the alternate assessments
measured grade-level or below grade-level standards. Very few students in
the state received alternate assessments that measured grade-level
achievement standards.

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.

Massachusetts and Oregon Used Innovative Approaches to Assess the Performance of
Students with Disabilities

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.

Figure 3: Example of How a Below Grade-Level Standard Differs in
Complexity from a Grade-Level Standard

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.

Nationwide 5 Percent of Students with Disabilities Are Excluded from NAEP, but
State Exclusion Rates Varied

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.11

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. 12 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.13

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.

11 For more information, see Statistical Methods to Account for Excluded
Students in NAEP at
nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/statmeth.pdf.

12 This report examined the exclusion of students with disabilities and
students with limited English proficiency together and did not address the
impact of the exclusion of students with disabilities separately. On the
2002 NAEP reading assessment, about 1.5 times as many students were
identified as having disabilities as limited English proficiency. Students
with disabilities were more than twice as likely to be excluded as
students with limited English proficiency. For more information, see
Edward Haertel, Including Students with Disabilities and English Language
Learners in NAEP: Effects of Differential Inclusion Rates on Accuracy and
Interpretability of Findings (Washington, D.C.: National Assessment
Governing Board, December 2003). www.nagb.org/pubs/conferences/haertle.pdf
.

13 For more information, see National Assessment of Educational Progress,
Washington, D.C.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2002/2003521b.pdf.

Table 3: Accommodations Provided in Some Regular Statewide Assessments but
Not for NAEP

Braille edition of assessmenta                     
Audio tape administration of assessment            
Calculator                                         
Abacus                                             
Arithmetic tables                                  
Graph paper                                        
Responses in native primary language               
Thesaurus                                          
Spelling and grammar checking software and devices 
Signing directions or answers                      
Extending sessions over multiple days              

Source: National Center for Education Statistics and interviews with
Education officials.

Note: See National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP Inclusion Policy,
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp (June 3, 2005).

aThe NAEP does not provide a Braille edition of the assessment but does
allow states to provide a Braille edition at their own expense.

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.

States Faced Challenges in Designing and Preparing Teachers to Administer
                             Alternate Assessments

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.

National Education Organizations and Some State Officials Reported Difficulties
Designing Alternate Assessments

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.14

  Widely Varying Abilities of Students with Disabilities

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.

14 Alternate assessments under NCLBA were first discussed as part of
Education's standards and assessment regulations. These final regulations
were issued on July 5, 2002. Alternate assessments were also discussed in
regulations issued on December 9, 2003.

  Design Process Took Time

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.

Table 4. Selected Alternate Assessments Used in Study States and
Descriptions

Alternate                                                                  
assessments  Achievement standard Description
Portfolio    Grade-Level or below A collection of student work gathered to 
                grade-level          demonstrate student performance on       
                achievement          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.                             
Performance  Grade-Level or below A direct measure of student skills or    
assessment   grade-level          knowledge, usually in a one-on-one       
                achievement          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.                        
Out of level Below grade-level    A regular assessment for a lower grade   
assessment   achievement          level.                                   

Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes.

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.

  Individualized and Standardized Assessments and Reliability of Assessments

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.15 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.

  Start-Up Issues and Ongoing Costs

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.

15 Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year
Three of the No Child Left Behind Act (Washington, D.C.: March 2005).
http://www.ctredpol.org/pubs/nclby3/ .

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 report16 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.

Extensive Training and Implementation Posed Challenge for Teachers

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.17 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.

16 GAO, Title I: Characteristics of Tests Will Influence Expenses;
Information Sharing May Help States Realize Efficiencies, GAO-03-389
(Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2003).

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.

17 For example, portfolios in one state required three work samples,
including a sheet on which the teacher tracked student performance during
the school year, for each of five content areas for each subject assessed.
For a student taking an alternate assessment in reading and math, two
separate portfolios with fifteen work samples each would need to be
created. Veteran teachers in one state emphasized the need to collect work
samples as part of their everyday teaching activities. Although it was
challenging to incorporate the practice into their classrooms, this made
assembling the portfolios much easier and faster.

    Education Disseminated Information to States on Assessing Students with
     Disabilities, but Some State Officials Reported the Need for Alternate
                              Assessment Examples

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.

Education Provided Many Types of Assistance, but Officials Said Examples of
Alternate Assessment Approaches Would Be Helpful

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.18
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.

18 According to Education officials, this assistance was provided
primarily through the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the
Office of Special Education Programs, with support from the Institute of
Education Sciences and the Office for Civil Rights.

Information on Assessment of Students with Disabilities Not Easily Located on
Education's Web Site

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.

                                  Conclusions

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.

                      Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

                       Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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 [email protected]. 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.

Sincerely yours,

Marnie S. Shaul Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

Appendix I: Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in State
Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year, by State
Appendix I: Percent of Students with Disabilities Participating in State
Reading/Language Arts Assessments in the 2003-04 School Year, by State

                                                                      Percent of               
                                                         Percent of     students               
                                                           students         with               
                                                               with disabilities               
                                            Percent of disabilities   tested who               
                                              students   tested who participated               
                                                  with participated in alternate    Percent of 
                 Percent of    Percent of disabilities in alternate      reading       data on
              total student students with   tested who      reading  assessments participation
                 population  disabilities participated  assessments    measuring by assessment
              participating participating   in regular    measuring        below type that was
                 in reading    in reading      reading  grade-level  grade-level unreported or
                      exams         exams assessmentsa   standardsa   standardsa      missinga
Alabama                94.6            86           76            0            6            18 
Alaska                   98            97           96            0            4             0 
Arizona                 100            96           91            0            9             0 
Arkansas                 97            90           93            0            7             0 
California               98            98           92            0            8             0 
Colorado                100           100           91            0            7             2 
Connecticut              96            98           82            0           18             0 
Delaware                 99            98           93            0            7             0 
District of                                                                                    
Columbia                 93            86           94            0            6             0
Florida                 98b          96 b           88            0           12             0 
Georgia                92.9            93           94            0            6             0 
Hawaii                   98            96           97            3            0             0 
Idaho                    99            99           94            0            4             2 
Illinois                 99            98           94            0            6             0 
Indiana                 100             c           95            0            5             0 
Iowa                     99            98           96            0            4             0 
Kansas                   99            98           73           21            6             0 
Kentucky                 99            99           93            0            7             0 
Louisiana               100           99a           83            0           17             0 
Maine                   100            99           93            0            7             0 
Maryland                100           100           91            0            9             0 
Massachusetts           100            99           94          < 1            6             0 
Michigan                  c             c           65            0           35             0 
Minnesota                97            95           88            0           12             0 
Mississippi              99            96           89            0        9-12d             0 
Missouri                 99            96           99            0            1             0 
Montana                 100            99           93            0            7             0 
Nebraska                 99            96           96            0            4             0 
Nevada                  98a            97           97            0            3             0 
New Hampshire            99            99           95            0            5             0 
New Jersey               99            97           95            0            5             0 
New Mexico              97a           94a           95            0            5             0 
New York                98a           93a           89            1            4             6 
North                                                                                          
Carolina                100            99           87            9            3             0
North Dakota            100            98           92            0            8             0 
Ohio                     98            96           95            0            5             0 
Oklahoma                 99           100           84            0           16             0 
Oregon                  100            99           76           14            9             0 
Pennsylvania             98            94           94            0            6             0 
Rhode Island             99            98           97            0            3             0 
South                                                                                          
Carolina                 99            98           88            0            3             9
South Dakota             99            99           93            0            7             0 
Tennessee                99            99           92            0            8             0 
Texas                  94.6            77           39            0           60             1 
Utah                     97            95           93          < 1            7             0 
Vermont                 100            99           74           20            6             0 
Virginia                 99            97           92            0            8             0 
Washington              100           100           94            0            6             0 
West Virginia            99            98           96            0            4             0 
Wisconsin                99            98           91          < 1            9             0 
Wyominge                100            99           98            0            6             0 

Source: GAO analysis; State consolidated performance reports to Education.

Note: Figures rounded to the nearest whole number, except in cases where
rounding would have made numbers appear inconsistent with other sections
of the report.

aCalculated by GAO from state data.

bFlorida does not calculate participation rate separately for reading and
for mathematics. The information included in this table is the
participation rate for reading and mathematics combined.

cDid not provide usable data

dMississippi reported a range for this figure.

eSum 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.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education Appendix II:
Comments from the Department of Education

Appendix III: GAOA Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Marnie Shaul, (202) 512-7215, [email protected]

Staff Acknowledgments

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.

Related GAO Products Related GAO Products

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.

(130387)

GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548

Public Affairs

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***