Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

3 Participation in NAEP and Other Large-Scale Assessments
Pages 41-61

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 41...
... assessments have not been subject to the same legal requirements regarding participation, and until 1996 they did not permit accommodations. NAEP's participation rates for students with disabilities and English language learners have thus lagged behind those of state assessment programs.
From page 42...
... 14-15) The NAEP procedures used prior to 1990 allowed schools to exclude sam pled students if they were LEP and if local school personnel judged the students incapable of participating meaningfully in the assessment Beginning in 1990, NAEP instructions to schools for excluding LEP students from the assessment required the following conditions to be met: the student is a native speaker of a language other than English AND the student has been enrolled in an English speaking school for less than 2 years (not including bilingual education pro grams)
From page 43...
... The median differences over assessment years between the participation rates when accommodations were not allowed and were allowed were 17.7 percent for students with disabilities and 21.3 percent for English language learners. Table 3-2 presents this same information from the research study on the participation rates of students with disabilities and English language learners in NAEP's reading and math assessments for eighth graders.
From page 44...
... (6) Students Students Percent Identified Assessed Participating Accommodation Assessment Year Permitted SWD ELL SWD ELL SWD ELL Reading 1992 No 1,149 945 159 110 13.8 11.6 1994 No 1,039 623 354 255 34.1 40.9 1998 -- S2a No 490 527 243 204 49.6 38.7 1998 -- S3b Yes 558 446 312 279 55.9 62.6 Differences in participation rates for two 1998 samples 6.3 23.9 2000 -- S2a No 524 356 229 215 43.7 60.4 2000 -- S3b Yes 510 446 317 287 62.2 64.4 Differences in participation rates for two 2000 samples 18.5 4.0 Math 1992 No 1,163 939 173 104 14.9 11.1 1996 -- S2a No 359 142 206 75 57.4 52.8 1996 -- S3b Yes 424 308 315 222 74.3 72.1 Differences in participation rates for two 1996 samples 16.9 19.3 2000 -- S2a No 672 454 292 265 43.5 58.4 2000 -- S3b Yes 706 472 526 385 74.5 81.6 Differences in participation rates for two 2000 samples 31.0 23.2 aResults from split sample study: Students taking this assessment were NOT allowed accommodations.
From page 45...
... (6) Students Students Percent Identified Assessed Participating Accommodation Assessment Year Permitted SWD ELL SWD ELL SWD ELL Reading 1992 No 1,522 836 199 86 13.1 10.3 1994 No 1,323 444 344 121 26.0 27.3 1998 -- S2a No 975 449 451 315 46.3 70.2 1998 -- S3b Yes 865 447 582 338 67.3 75.6 Differences in participation rates for two 1998 samples 21.0 5.4 Math 1992 No 1,538 838 215 88 14.0 10.5 1996a No 310 106 161 68 51.9 64.2 1996b Yes 557 226 374 175 67.1 77.4 Differences in participation rates for two 1996 samples 15.2 13.2 2000a No 1,316 551 597 341 45.4 61.9 2000b Yes 1,206 471 804 368 66.7 78.1 Differences in participation rates for two 2000 samples 21.3 16.2 aResults from split sample study: Students taking this assessment were NOT allowed accommodations.
From page 46...
... Were Disabilities with Accommodations students accommodations accommodations accommodations Students accommodations accommodations accommodations LEP When 3-3 Without With Without With Without With students 4 and/or Identified Excluded Assessed students Identified Excluded Assessed Identified Excluded Assessed SD SD LEP TABLE Assessed, Reading Grade
From page 47...
... 47 continued 5 8 4 4 8 5 3 6 2 4 4 # 4 8 6 2 9 3 6 4 2 17 11 12 12 496 616 940 673 267 535 696 446 250 7,135 8,598 4,404 5,939 6,074 4,146 5,516 1,907 3,609 3,113 1,556 1,231 20,137 13,002 16,159 10,220 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - 4 9 6 -- 2 -- 3 7 5 -- 2 -- 3 1 2 2 -- # 7 2 5 4 1 6 2 4 3 1 12 10 368 884 678 206 865 283 582 404 178 447 109 338 31 307 975 327 648 532 116 649 285 364 98 266 1,252 students accommodations accommodations accommodations students accommodations accommodations accommodations accommodations accommodations accommodations accommodations LEP LEP Without With Without With Without With Without With Without With students 8 and/or Identified Excluded Assessed students Identified Excluded Assessed Identified Excluded Assessed 12 and/or Identified Excluded Assessed students Identified Excluded Assessed SD SD LEP SD SD Grade Grade
From page 48...
... 48 of were sample Educational students of Students 3 1 3 2 # Weighted Percentage of Sampled some combined e of the 419 125 294 266 8 Assessment 2 becaus portion. no p to 2002 Number Students based the chools.s National portions in was LEP once private and sample Statistics, only from SD Students Weighted Percentage of Sampled -- -- -- -- -- national counted sample a Education separate of but 2002 as for the the well of Center 2000 Number Students -- -- -- -- -- portions as sum a because states not bottom National years is the in rounding.
From page 49...
... 49 Were 4 2 2 2 1 6 5 7 3 4 2 5 2 5 5 1 5 6 2 9 Assessed with Accom- modations continued Assessed without Accom- modations 4 8 5 5 3 4 3 6 4 3 7 4 6 3 4 2 3 5 4 3 Accommodations 8 Assessed 11 7 7 4 9 8 13 7 8 9 9 8 8 10 4 8 10 6 12 When 5 2 5 4 3 4 7 5 3 4 4 4 4 7 4 8 6 6 4 Excluded 10 Assessed, and Students 7 2002 SD Identified 13 13 11 12 13 15 17 10 12 13 13 12 15 14 11 19 16 12 16 Excluded, Reading for Assessed with Accom- modations 3 1 1 2 1 3 4 4 3 1 2 3 3 2 5 3 4 5 Identified, 2002 (SD) and Assessed without Accom- modations 4 3 4 4 4 9 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4 2 7 1998 Disabilities 7 4 5 6 22 7 Assessed 12 9 6 7 6 9 63 5 7 7 6 12 State, with By Excluded 5 8 5 4 7 1 5 4 4 3 5 7 7 7 5 4 Students Schools: of Students 63 9 93 Public 1998 SD Identified 12 13 10 10 14 14 14 10 -- -- -- -- -- 10 -- -- -- -- -- 14 12 14 15 11 16 4 Percentage Grade 3-4 (Public)
From page 50...
... 50 1 3 1 3 4 6 2 3 5 4 3 2 5 3 5 Assessed with Accom- modations 10 3 1 2 3 6 3 Assessed without Accom- modations 3 6 2 4 4 7 5 6 3 8 3 8 7 4 6 8 6 5 5 3 3 4 Assessed 10 3 7 8 3 7 9 82 6 1 5 13 9 10 15 11 8 6 7 9 6 7 4 4 8 5 41 5 7 6 51 8 5 5 4 3 4 3 8 4 5 8 Excluded 10 Students 2002 SD Identified 11 7 13 15 13 18 12 15 14 17 16 13 17 16 13 19 16 11 14 12 13 14 Assessed with Accom- modations 1 3 # 4 2 1 2 4 6 1 4 3 3 2 2 1 4 Assessed without Accom- modations 2 6 2 3 5 4 5 2 3 6 6 5 7 5 4 4 3 9 3 7 7 4 7 51 8 5 Assessed 10 10 8 9 8 6 8 Excluded 5 3 4 6 2 6 7 6 9 4 5 7 3 7 4 6 Students 9 7 94 1998 SD Identified 12 14 10 -- -- -- -- -- 10 14 14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 14 -- -- -- -- -- 14 15 12 14 10 -- -- -- -- -- 14 Continued 3-4 Carolina Dakota Island Carolina Mexico York ont erm TABLE Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South Tennessee Texas Utah V Virginia
From page 51...
... 51 4 2 4 7 4 4 3 1 # Educational of 6 3 3 5 3 4 2 2 Assessment 9 5 8 7 73 7 3 2 12 National Statistics, 4 6 2 7 3 2 4 1 10 2002. Education in 13 15 13 14 14 10 9 7 3 for Center participation National 3 1 2 4 2 2 1 0 school for Schools.
From page 52...
... 52 Assessed with Accom- modations 1 # 1 # # # # 2 # 1 # 1 0 # 2 # # # # 1 # 5 1 When Assessed without Accom- modations 15 26 76 11 33 22 11 75 22 64 6 54 1 11 64 ## 1# ## 11 21 22 Assessed, Assessed 16 26 and Reading Excluded 2 # 5 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 # 1 # 2 2 1 for Excluded, Students 2002 9 1 3 4 3 2002 LEP Identified 21 29 10 4 8 71 9 21 2 7 1 1 1 3 4 3 and Identified, 1998 State, Students Assessed with Accom- modations 1 # 1 0 1 # # # # 0 # 0 # # 0 # # 1 # By (LEP) 6 Schools: Assessed without Accom- modations 13 Proficient Public 4 7 Assessed 14 English Grade 6 Excluded 12 Limited of Permitted, Students 5233 ###0 1111 5411 3#22 5133 21## 6244 5322 1111 3122 1### 1111 #0## 2121 4222 2111 1998 LEP Identified 14 26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - Were Percentage 3-5 (Public)
From page 53...
... 53 1 0 # # # 1 2 1 1 # 0 1 2 # 2 # # 1 1 # 1 # 0 1 1 continued 4 # 1 1 2 10 19 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 5 1 2 2 # 2 3 10 5 # 1 1 3 11 21 3 1 2 1 4 86 1 5 1 3 7 1 3 2 # 3 4 11 2 # 1 1 7 6 3 3 1 4 3 1 1 5 3 3 1 # 3 1 7 # 2 2 42 18 6 5 21 11 5 27 12 21 9 2 3 16 9 2# 6 3 # 6 5 1 0 # # # 1 0 # 0 1 1 0 0 # # 1 # 0 # # 4 11 6 4 12 6 6 4 7 4133 #0## 1### #0#0 5411 2111 2#11 7254 6343 1#11 11## 5232 2111 4232 #### 3121 11## -- -- -- -- -- 10 16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 -- -- -- -- - Carolina Dakota Island Carolina Mexico York Virginia ah Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New North North Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode South Tennessee Texas Ut Vermont Virginia Washington West Wisconsin Wyoming
From page 54...
... 54 Assessed with Accom- modations 2 1 1 6 1 Educational of 3 3 6 Assessed without Accom- modations 25 3 Assessment 4 4 7 Assessed 31 3 National Statistics, Excluded 3 2 1 5 2 Students 2002. Education in 7 6 8 2002 LEP Identified 36 5 for Center participation National Assessed with Accom- modations 1 # # 1 school for Schools.
From page 55...
... . With this survey, the council collects information about exemptions from statewide assessments; that is, the survey asks states if the number of special education or limited English proficient exemptions increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the past two to three years.
From page 56...
... Students Identified, Excluded, and Assessed, When Accommodations Were Permitted, Grade 4 Public Schools: By State, 1998 and 2002 for Reading 1998 SD and/or LEP Students All Students Assessed Assessed Assessed without with without Accom- Accom- Accom Identified Excluded Assessed modations modations modations Nation (Public) 18 7 11 7 3 90 Alabama 13 8 4 3 1 90 Arizona 22 10 12 10 1 88 Arkansas 11 5 6 4 2 93 California 31 14 16 15 1 84 Connecticut 18 10 8 5 3 87 Delaware 16 1 15 11 4 95 Florida 18 6 12 8 5 89 Georgia 11 5 6 3 3 93 Hawaii 15 5 10 9 1 94 Idaho -- -- -- -- -- -Illinois 14 6 8 6 2 92 Indiana -- -- -- -- -- -Iowa 15 5 10 7 3 92 Kansas 12 4 8 5 4 93 Kentucky 13 7 5 3 2 90 Louisiana 15 7 8 3 5 88 Maine 15 7 7 4 3 90 Maryland 13 6 8 4 4 90 Massachusetts 19 5 14 9 5 90 Michigan 10 6 4 3 1 93 Minnesota 15 3 12 9 3 94 Mississippi 7 4 3 2 # 95 Missouri 14 6 8 3 4 89 Montana 10 2 7 5 2 96 Nebraska -- -- -- -- -- -Nevada 20 11 9 8 1 88 New Mexico 28 9 18 16 2 88 New York 14 7 7 2 4 88 North Carolina 15 7 9 3 6 88 North Dakota -- -- -- -- -- -Ohio -- -- -- -- -- -Oklahoma 15 9 6 5 1 90 Oregon 20 6 14 10 4 90 Pennsylvania -- -- -- -- -- -Rhode Island 20 7 13 9 4 89 South Carolina 16 8 9 6 3 90
From page 57...
... PARTICIPATION IN NAEP 57 2002 SD and/or LEP Students All Students Assessed Assessed Assessed without with without Accom- Accom- AccomIdentified Excluded Assessed modations modations modations 21 7 14 10 4 89 14 3 12 9 2 95 28 8 21 18 3 90 14 5 10 8 2 93 34 5 29 28 1 94 16 5 11 5 6 89 17 8 9 4 5 87 25 7 18 10 8 85 13 4 9 6 3 93 18 6 12 7 5 89 17 4 13 11 2 93 20 7 14 8 6 87 13 5 9 7 2 93 16 8 8 3 5 87 19 5 14 7 7 88 12 8 4 3 1 91 19 10 9 3 6 84 17 6 11 5 6 88 14 7 7 5 2 92 19 6 13 4 9 85 14 7 6 5 1 92 19 5 13 10 4 91 7 4 3 2 1 95 16 9 8 4 3 88 15 6 8 4 4 89 21 5 15 9 6 88 27 10 17 14 3 87 37 10 27 23 4 85 18 8 9 3 6 86 19 12 7 3 4 84 18 5 13 9 3 91 14 8 5 4 2 90 21 5 15 10 5 89 25 8 17 13 4 88 14 5 10 4 5 90 25 6 19 8 11 84 16 5 12 9 3 92 continued
From page 58...
... Their publication, Quality Counts 2004, reports participation rates in state assessments in fourth, eighth, and tenth grade reading and mathematics assessments. Participation rates were calculated by dividing the number of students with disabilities who took the test in each grade level and subject area by the number of students with disabilities enrolled in each grade level and subject area.
From page 59...
... SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1998 and 2002 Reading Assessments.
From page 60...
... We were unable to obtain data that would permit calculations of participation rates for English language learners. SUMMARY The provision of accommodations has clearly increased the overall participation of students with special needs in NAEP, but significant variations in accommodation policies, both among the states and between states and NAEP, remain an important issue to consider in evaluating the comparability of data about students with disabilities and English language learners.
From page 61...
... It may be informative for NAEP to collect information on the extent to which students with disabilities and English language learners are not able to participate as a consequence of NAEP's policies regarding accommodations, and specifically about the types of accommodations students require that NAEP does not allow or provide. This effort could lead to increased participation rates on NAEP, as well as to a better representation of the academic achievement of the nation's student population.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.