This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-618 
entitled 'No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with Disabilities 
Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion Options Could Be 
Improved' which was released on July 20, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

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: 

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

GAO-05-618: 

GAO Highlights: 

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

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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 Found: 

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: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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. 

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. 

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 shaulm@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

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

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

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

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

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

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards: 

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

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

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

Figures: 

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

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: 

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

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: 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 disabilities[Footnote 5] to 
participate meaningfully in the NAEP. This policy was developed in 
response to increases in the numbers of students with disabilities, the 
attention paid to their needs, and a corresponding demand for 
information about their academic progress. Under the old policy, far 
fewer students with disabilities had been included in testing. 

IDEA is the primary federal law that addresses the educational needs of 
children with disabilities, including children with significant 
cognitive disabilities. The law mandates that a free appropriate public 
education be made available for all eligible children with 
disabilities, requires an individualized education program[Footnote 6] 
(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. 

Table 1: Examples of Assessment Types by Achievement Standards: 

Assessment type: Regular assessment without accommodations; 
Achievement standard: Grade-Level; 
Example: Paper and pencil assessment, i.e., the same assessment that 
students without disabilities take. 

Assessment type: Regular assessment with accommodations; 
Achievement standard: Grade-Level; 
Example: Paper and pencil assessment with extended time for test-
taking; small group or individual setting. 

Assessment type: Alternate assessment; 
Achievement standard: Grade- Level or below grade-level; 
Example: Portfolio showing samples of student work. 

Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

[End of table]

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.[Footnote 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. 

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[Footnote 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. 

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

[See PDF for image]

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. 

[End of figure]

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.[Footnote 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. 

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: 

[See PDF for image]

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. 

[End of figure]

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

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): 

Disability Type: Intellectual; 
Enrollment: 4,046; 
Regular assessment: 4%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 66%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 28%. 

Disability Type: Sensory/Hearing; 
Enrollment: 327; 
Regular assessment: 10%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 81%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 8%. 

Disability Type: Communication; 
Enrollment: 5,659; 
Regular assessment: 21%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 77%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 1%. 

Disability Type: Sensory/Vision; 
Enrollment: 135; 
Regular assessment: 12%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 78%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 10%. 

Disability Type: Emotional; 
Enrollment: 4,126; 
Regular assessment: 10%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 85%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 2%. 

Disability Type: Physical; 
Enrollment: 310; 
Regular assessment: 33%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 58%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 8%. 

Disability Type: Health; 
Enrollment: 2,145; 
Regular assessment: 10%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 88%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 1%. 

Disability Type: Specific learning; 
Enrollment: 24,979; 
Regular assessment: 9%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 90%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 1%. 

Disability Type: Sensory/Deaf-Blindness; 
Enrollment: 102; 
Regular assessment: 6%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 68%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 25%. 

Disability Type: Multiple disabilities; 
Enrollment: 1,504; 
Regular assessment: 6%; 
English/ Language arts (tested in grades 3, 4, 7, 10): Regular 
assessment with accommodations: 61%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 31%. 

Disability Type: Autism; 
Enrollment: 1,272; 
Regular assessment: 6%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 53%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 40%. 

Disability Type: Neurological; 
Enrollment: 1,513; 
Regular assessment: 11%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 83%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 5%. 

Disability Type: Developmental delay; 
Enrollment: 1,648; 
Regular assessment: 13%; 
Regular assessment with accommodations: 76%; 
Alternate assessment at grade level or below grade level: 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. 

[End of table]

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: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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

Braille edition of assessment[A]. 
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). 

[A] The NAEP does not provide a Braille edition of the assessment but 
does allow states to provide a Braille edition at their own expense. 

[End of table]

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.[Footnote 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. 

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: Portfolio; 
Achievement standard: Grade-Level or below grade-level achievement; 
Description: A collection of student work gathered to demonstrate 
student performance on specific skills and knowledge, generally linked 
to state content standards. Portfolio contents are individualized and 
may include, among other evidence, samples of student work, test 
results, and video records of student performance. 

Alternate assessments: Performance assessment; 
Achievement standard: Grade-Level or below grade-level achievement; 
Description: A direct measure of student skills or knowledge, usually 
in a one-on-one assessment. These can be highly structured, requiring a 
teacher or assessment administrator to give students specific items or 
tasks, similar to regular assessments or based on student needs. 

Alternate assessments: Out of level assessment; 
Achievement standard: Below grade-level achievement; 
Description: A regular assessment for a lower grade level. 

Source: National Center on Educational Outcomes. 

[End of table]

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.[Footnote 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. 

Officials in two of the four states also reported that they were not 
using alternate assessments based on grade-level standards because they 
were unaware of models that appropriately measured achievement. 
National assessment and education experts said that education officials 
from many states had expressed similar views. In two of the four states 
we studied not using these assessments, some local officials told us 
that they would like to use this assessment option. 

Finally, assessment experts and state officials told us that designing 
and implementing these assessments was costly for this small group of 
students. They also said that there were start-up costs in addition to 
the annual cost for implementation. For example, officials in one state 
we studied estimated that they spent approximately $591,000 in the 
first year of implementation. These costs included designing the 
assessment, training teachers to administer the assessments and 
training scorers to score the assessments. These officials told us that 
costs have decreased to approximately $164,000 in the third year of 
implementation. Assessment experts estimated that the annual cost for 
alternate assessments per student ranged from $75 to $400, compared 
with $5 to $20 for regular assessments. A prior GAO report[Footnote 16] 
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.[Footnote 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. 

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. 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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 GAOís Web site at 
http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me on (202)512-7215 or at shaulm@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Other contacts and major contributors 
are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

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

[End of section]

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

Alabama; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
94.6%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
86%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 76%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 18%. 

Alaska; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
4%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Arizona; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
9%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Arkansas; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
90%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

California; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
8%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Colorado; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 2%. 

Connecticut; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 82%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
18%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Delaware; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

District of Columbia; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
86%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Florida; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98%[B]; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
96%[B]; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 88%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
12%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Georgia; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
92.9%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Hawaii; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 3%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
0%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Idaho; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
4%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 2%. 

Illinois; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Indiana; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
[C]; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
5%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Iowa; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
4%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Kansas; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 73%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 21%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Kentucky; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Louisiana; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99[A]; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 83%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
17%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Maine; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Maryland; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
9%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Massachusetts; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: < 1%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Michigan; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
[C]; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
[C]; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 65%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
35%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Minnesota; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
95%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 88%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
12%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Mississippi; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 89%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
9-12%[D]; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Missouri; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
1%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Montana; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Nebraska; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
4%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Nevada; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98[A]; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
3%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

New Hampshire; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
5%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

New Jersey; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
5%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

New Mexico; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
97%[A]; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
94%[A]; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
5%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

New York; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98%[A]; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
93%[A]; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 89%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 1%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
4%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 6%. 

North Carolina; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 87%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 9%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
3%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

North Dakota; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
8%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Ohio; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 95%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
5%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Oklahoma; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 84%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
16%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Oregon; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 76%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 14%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
9%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Pennsylvania; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Rhode Island; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
3%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

South Carolina; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 88%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
3%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 9%. 

South Dakota; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Tennessee; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
8%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Texas; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
94.6%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
77%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 39%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
60%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 1%. 

Utah; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
95%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 93%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: < 1%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
7%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Vermont; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 74%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 20%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Virginia; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
97%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 92%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
8%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Washington; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 94%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

West Virginia; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 96%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
4%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Wisconsin; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 91%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: < 1%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
9%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 0%. 

Wyoming[E]; 
Percent of total student population participating in reading exams: 
100%; 
Percent of students with disabilities participating in reading exams: 
99%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
regular reading assessments[A]: 98%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring grade-level standards[A]: 0%; 
Percent of students with disabilities tested who participated in 
alternate reading assessments measuring below grade-level standards[A]: 
6%; 
Percent of data on participation by assessment type that was unreported 
or missing[A]: 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. 

[A] Calculated by GAO from state data. 

[B] Florida 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. 

[C] Did not provide usable data: 

[D] Mississippi reported a range for this figure. 

[E] Sum of the number of students with disabilities participating in 
the three different types of reading assessments was greater than 
figure the state provided for the total number of students 
participating in reading assessments. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Education: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

June 30, 2005: 

Ms. Marnie S. Shaul:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Shaul: 

We are writing in response to your request for comments on the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report (GAO-05-618), dated 
July 2005, and entitled "No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students with 
Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, but Inclusion 
Options Could Be Improved." As the first half of the draft report title 
indicates, States, school districts and schools have made significant 
progress in including students with disabilities in State academic 
assessments and, with the assistance of the U.S. Department of 
Education (the Department), have developed assessments and 
accommodations, to ensure that the legal requirements for inclusion of 
students with disabilities are met. We appreciate the opportunity to 
comment on the draft report and provide insight on actions the 
Department is taking to improve the assessment of students with 
disabilities. 

Our nation is giving an unprecedented and high level of attention to 
the meaningful inclusion of all students with disabilities in academic 
achievement assessments. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) expanded 
the alternate assessment and assessment accommodations requirements 
established under the Improving America's Schools Act in 1994, and the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997. The Department's 
Title I standards and assessment regulations require that all reading/ 
language arts and mathematics assessments used for accountability, 
including alternate assessments, meet the same rigorous technical 
quality, alignment, inclusion, and reporting standards. Because the law 
now requires inclusion of the test scores of students with disabilities 
in school, district, and State accountability determinations, States, 
districts, and schools can no longer exclude students from receiving 
access to the general curriculum, or from determinations that establish 
if a school or district is preparing students adequately for their 
future. With the implementation of NCLBA, we have an assurance that all 
students' academic performance counts, including students with 
disabilities. 

Regarding the recommendations contained in the draft report, we are 
providing the following responses: 

GAO Recommendation 1: The Secretary of Education [should] 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. 

Through the Web pages of the Department's various offices --including 
the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education, and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services --the Department's Web site offers helpful information 
regarding the assessment of students with disabilities. To further 
increase the public's access to this information, the Department will 
explore establishing "hot buttons" and links among the Web pages 
maintained by our different offices. In addition to using the World 
Wide Web to disseminate information, the Department engages in ongoing 
outreach efforts to provide direct technical assistance to States. As a 
result, our nation is seeing the highest level of inclusion of students 
with disabilities in State academic assessments since inclusion became 
a statutory requirement. 

The Department collaborates extensively with States regarding the 
inclusion of students with disabilities in the assessments required by 
NCLBA. The Department's outreach communicates the requirements for 
student inclusion in the assessments under NCLBA, which have 
contributed significantly to the increased participation rates cited in 
the GAO draft report showing that students with disabilities are being 
included in the academic assessment for most States at levels at or 
above those targeted by the NCLBA statute. The Department's outreach 
also includes working with States to improve their data systems to 
ensure they capture the true achievement and participation of students. 
For example, the seven States noted with inclusion rates below 95 
percent have already begun to address their data management and 
documentation systems to more accurately report the participation rates 
for students in the required State academic assessments used for 
accountability. 

The Department's outreach is reflected by participation of our staff in 
meetings with State directors of special education, assessment and 
Title 1; collaboration with the National Center for Educational 
Outcomes (NCEO), and the National Alternate Assessment Center (NAAC); 
and participation in Council of Chief State School Officers' (CCSSO) 
State collaborative quarterly meetings, which include collaboratives 
that focus on special education assessment, technical issues in large 
scale assessment, accountability systems reporting, and comprehensive 
assessment systems. These State collaboratives include representatives 
from 49 States, DC, Puerto Rico and several of the outlying areas. The 
Office of Special Education Programs' (OSEP) Regional Resource Centers 
and other OSEP technical assistance projects also collaborate with 
States via teleconferences, pre-conference training sessions, and by 
providing technical assistance materials and resources. Additionally, 
since April 7, 2005, our Web site has included a Plan of Action letter 
for outreach to States to include students with disabilities who would 
benefit from the opportunity to be assessed using an assessment 
instrument that is aligned with a State's academic content standards 
and with modified academic achievement standards. 

While the draft report does not address Department outreach, the 
inclusion of these activities in the report would provide a more 
complete picture of our efforts to disseminate reliable information to 
States. 

GAO Recommendation 2: The Secretary of Education [should] 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. 

We appreciate GAO's recommendation that the Department work with States 
to explore strategies to include more students with disabilities in the 
NAEP assessments. After NCLBA was signed into law, the Department's 
National Center for Education Statistics contracted with each State 
educational agency to fund a NAEP coordinator for the State. These 
coordinators assist with many activities related to the NAEP State 
assessments, including assistance with briefing State and local 
educators and parents about NAEP's inclusion and accommodation 
procedures. 

We do need to point out that NAEP cannot include all students with 
disabilities, although the recommendation could be read to suggest 
otherwise. For example, NAEP is conducted only in regular graded 
schools and not in special schools for students with disabilities, such 
as schools for the blind. In addition, NAEP does not conduct alternate 
assessments for students whose disabilities are too severe to allow 
them to take the regular assessments, nor does NAEP permit all of the 
accommodations that are allowed in some States. For example, NAEP does 
not permit reading the reading assessment aloud to students with 
disabilities because NAEP tests a student's ability to read printed 
English. Your report should thus reflect that NAEP assessments are 
different from State academic assessments and that the inclusion of 
students with disabilities in NAEP assessments is affected by sampling 
issues as well as by the limitations of accommodations that are 
appropriate for the content covered by NAEP. 

Inclusion rates for students with disabilities improved dramatically 
for NAEP over the last decade, as NCES supported research on the 
effects of accommodations on test performance and the comparability of 
assessment results. NAEP now provides a range of accommodations that 
were not available in earlier assessments. In addition, the variation 
in exclusion rates among States is declining. More States are including 
more students with disabilities in NAEP assessments. We expect to see 
States including even more students with disabilities in the future 
because of a policy recently adopted by the National Assessment 
Governing Board (NAGB) with regard to the criteria to be used by 
schools in determining whether a student should participate in NAEP 
assessments. Through the 2005 assessments, NAEP policy required that 
schools include students in NAEP unless the students were too severely 
cognitively impaired to participate meaningfully in the assessments. 
This policy permitted individual schools to make the decision about 
which students should participate in the assessments and led to 
variability in the inclusion of students across sampled schools. 
Starting with the 2006 assessments, NAGB's new NAEP policy will require 
schools to include students in NAEP if the students took the regular 
State assessments (with or without accommodations) and the students' 
IEPs do not specify that they must be provided accommodations that NAEP 
does not allow. (The NAGB policy will also 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 NAEP.)

The Department continues to provide guidance and technical assistance 
to the few States that are not successful in expanding the inclusion of 
students with disabilities in their assessments. The Department's 
Institute of Education Sciences, guided by NAGB, continues to explore 
strategies for enhancing the inclusion of various underrepresented 
groups in the NAEP assessments and has been successful in expanding the 
inclusion of students with disabilities in its State samples. The 
Department acknowledges that there is still much work to be done in 
increasing the participation and inclusion rates of students with 
disabilities from the 95 percent that most States have achieved to 100 
percent. We look forward to continuing to work with States as they 
develop and implement the new assessment systems that are inclusive of 
all students. The Department will also continue to support States in 
their efforts to improve data quality and accountability. 

We have already provided technical comments on the draft report to your 
office. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

John Hager: 
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services: 

Signed by: 

Raymond Simon: 
Deputy Secretary: 

[End of section]

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Marnie Shaul, (202) 512-7215, shaulm@gao.gov: 

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. 

[End of section]

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. 

FOOTNOTES

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

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

[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. 

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

[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. 

[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. 

[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/. 

[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). 

[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. 

[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. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

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: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: