WHO WE ARE    |   PUBLICATIONS   |  PRESENTATIONS   |  PROJECTS   |   RELATED SITES   |   STAFF   |   SITE MAP   |   SEARCH   |   WHAT'S NEW   |   HOME 

NCEO Synthesis Report 35

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by:

Sandra J. Thompson • Martha L. Thurlow

June 2000

Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L.. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report No. 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis35.html

The phrase “alternate assessment” appears in the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and is required to be in place in all states by July 1, 2000. Alternate assessments are for the small number of students with disabilities who cannot participate in state and district-wide assessment programs. To provide a continuously updated source of information about what states are doing, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) developed an on-line survey on the development of alternate assessments. Nearly two years after the survey’s initial design, responses have been received from all 50 states, with 47 states updating their information between March and June 2000. In addition, five educational units that receive IDEA Part B funds (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Marshall Islands, Virgin Islands, and Washington DC) have completed the survey. Guidelines, procedures, and training—all are progressing at a feverish pace as this document goes to print. Among the major findings are:

•     There is a divergence in who is involved in the development of alternate assessments that is reflected in the nature of the standards and the approach taken by states. While many states included state and local special and general educators in the design of their alternate assessment systems, a small number viewed alternate assessment development as a special education initiative.

•     The most prevalent alternate assessment approach is a collection of a body of evidence that assesses functional indicators of progress toward state standards using a variety of performance-based assessment strategies. Nine states plan to base their alternate assessment on separate standards or skill sets that are not linked to general education standards.

•  Although only a few states are actually implementing their alternate assessments statewide, most states are close to being ready to do so.

•     Areas of greatest need for development are scoring procedures and how data will be reported.

•  Fifteen states currently have information about their alternate assessments on their Web sites, with several others in draft form.

Alternate assessments have evolved over the past two years of development, and may be expected to continue this evolution as states implement them and determine what works best. While the presentation in this report of all the approaches states are taking does not imply endorsement of any specific state alternate assessment practices, it does indicate that states are still moving in many directions despite regulations suggesting directions for development.

Acknowledgments

A synthesis report of this magnitude is only as good as the quality of information gathered. To this end, we at NCEO extend our appreciation to each person who took the time to complete and then update the on-line survey on alternate assessment.

This survey was originally intended to serve only as a continuously updated on-line source of information, but we have found it important to take a “slice” of that information periodically and to do a careful analysis of the status of alternate assessments through these stages of rapid development. We appreciate the respondents’ willingness to allow to appear in print information that quickly goes “out-of-date” or is “not quite ready.” To stay up-to-date, we encourage readers to visit our Web site at http://education.umn.edu/NCEO to view current information and to check their state’s status.

Overview

The countdown is on. The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act require states to have alternate assessment systems in place by July 1, 2000. This report presents an examination of the status of alternate assessments across states as of June 1, 2000, just a month from the deadline. What do the alternate assessment systems look like? Who is involved in their development? Who will participate in these alternate assessment systems? These and other important questions and issues are addressed in this report.

The phrase “alternate assessment” appears in the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (see Appendix A):

As appropriate, the State or local agency (i) develops guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessment programs; and (ii) develops and, beginning not later than July 1, 2000, conducts those alternate assessments.  PL 105-17, Section 612 (a)(17)

IDEA does not provide specific direction to states about what an alternate assessment is, what it should look like, or how it should be scored or reported, nor does it specify the type or number of alternate assessment participants. It does clarify in its “Analysis of Comments and Changes” that accompany the final regulations that:

If IEP teams properly make individualized decisions about the participation of each child with a disability in general State or district-wide assessments, including the use of appropriate accommodations, and modifications in administration (including individual modifications, as appropriate), it should be necessary to use alternate assessments for a relatively small percentage of children with disabilities.

Most states estimate the number to range from less than one-half of one percent to no more than two percent of the total student population.

When IDEA was enacted in 1997, Kentucky was the only state with an operational alternate assessment system. Maryland was piloting a system and a few other states were in initial stages of development. As this report shows, nearly all states are now progressing through stages of development, pilot testing, and implementation of their alternate assessments.

Several states began their process of developing alternate assessments by establishing their purpose and guiding principles. A principle that has guided development in several states is that students with significant disabilities need opportunities to access a state’s educational standards (Burgess & Kennedy, 1998).

For example, the foundation for Kentucky’s Alternate Portfolio Assessment was the mandate for a totally inclusive assessment, with the same academic expectations for all students and a zero exemption rule. With this principle as a guide, Kentucky developed:

•  shared content standards;

•  scoring rubrics modeled on regular assessment;

•  shared assessment language for teachers, administrators, parents, and the community;

•    a formula to integrate scores within a school’s accountability index;

•  district and school reports listing all student scores; and

•  tracking procedures so that Alternate Portfolio scores are sent back to the student’s neighborhood school to promote ownership for student learning.

Here are examples of guiding principles from four states. Note that the first three states focus on high expectations for student learning (Olsen, 1998). The fourth state focuses on meeting the mandate with as little disruption to the status quo as possible.

State #1

•  All children can learn.

•  All children are full participants in the school experience.

•  All children will participate in the statewide assessment system.

State #2

•  Expectations for all students should be high, regardless of the existence of any disability.

•  The goals for an educated student must be applicable to all students, regardless of disability.

•  Special education programs must be an extension and adaptation of general education programs rather than an alternate or separate system.

State #3

•  All children have value, can learn and are expected to be full participants in the school experience.

•  School personnel, parents, local and state policymakers, and the students themselves are responsible for ensuring this full participation.

•  The Standard Course of Study is the foundation for all students, including students with unique learning needs.

State #4

•  Meet the law.

•  Nonabusive to students, staff, parents.

•  Inexpensive.

•  Easy to do and takes little time.

Guidelines, procedures, training—all are being developed at a feverish pace as this document goes to print. Some states responded to requests to update their survey with “Oh, please, couldn’t we wait just a few more weeks? Our committee will be making several decisions in the next month.” As an example of how new all of this is, one state published its “Guide for Participation in Statewide Alternate Assessments” on its Web site just a few weeks before the completion of this report. We have heard about several other guides that are in draft form, with publication dates expected by the time school starts in September.

Procedures for Collecting Information

The information used in the development of this report was compiled from an ongoing, on-line survey developed and maintained by the National Center on Educational Outcomes at the University of Minnesota. In the fall of 1997, NCEO began to examine the status of states in the development of alternate assessments. States wanted up-to-date information about what other states were doing in the development of their alternate assessments. The survey was placed on-line early in 1998, when most states were just beginning to consider the development of the alternate assessments required by IDEA 97. Most states updated their earliest responses in the winter of 1999, when the first status report on the development of alternate assessments was completed (Thompson, Erickson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Callender, 1999). States were invited to complete another round of survey updates between March and June 2000.

The information reported here was compiled from the on-line survey as of June 1, 2000. This date is important to note, since the development of alternate assessments is on a fast track, with the status of states changing daily. All 50 states, plus other educational units receiving federal special education funding (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington DC), were invited to complete the survey. A print copy of the survey is included in Appendix B. Supplemental information was gathered from written material about alternate assessments that states have posted on their Web sites, from personal communication with state officials, and from previously published reports (i.e., Burgess & Kennedy, 1998; Olsen, 1998; Thompson et al., 1999; Warlick, & Olsen, 1999).

State department personnel who are assigned the task of facilitating the development of alternate assessments completed the on-line survey. Respondents included both special education and assessment personnel. The respondents’ names can be found on the surveys, along with their e-mail addresses. They can be contacted directly for further information. Although survey questions could only be answered when a password given to each assigned respondent was used, the on-line survey was designed so that anyone could view any state’s responses, or the responses of all states to a single question. Respondents were able to update their survey responses at any time.

As of June 1, 2000, all 50 states and five other educational units completed the survey at least once, with 47 states and two educational units providing updates within the past three months. Multiple requests for updates were solicited from each state via e-mail, mail, fax, phone, and personal communication. The anecdotal data gathered through the surveys, personal communication, and other written documentation have provided us with a rich base of information to use in the compilation of this report. While the presentation of information on states’ alternate assessments is not meant as an endorsement of the approaches taken, the information should be useful as statewide implementation of these important assessments begins in earnest.

Survey Results

The NCEO on-line survey addressed a variety of components of alternate assessments, including: identification of stakeholders, participation guidelines, alignment with state standards, approaches to gathering data, determination of proficiency measures, reporting results, inclusion in high stakes systems, and statewide training. Survey results from all states are summarized in Table 1. Results from the other educational units are summarized in Appendix C.

As shown in Figure 1, there has been a great deal of activity over the past year, with many more states addressing each component of their alternate assessment systems than in 1999.    

Table 1. Summary of Alternate Assessment Features Addressed by States