NCEO Report 415

2018-19 Participation

Guidelines and Definitions

for Alternate Assessments

based on Alternate Academic

Achievement Standards

NCEO Report 415

2018-19 Participation Guidelines and Definitions for Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards

Martha L. Thurlow, Sheryl S. Lazarus, Deb A. Albus, Erik D. Larson, and Kristin K. Liu

October 2019

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

Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D. A., Larson, E. D., & Liu, K. K. (2019). 2018-19 participation guidelines and definitions for alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (NCEO Report 415). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.)

National Center on Educational OutcomesUniversity of Minnesota • 207 Pattee Hall150 Pillsbury Dr. SE • Minneapolis, MN 55455Phone 612/626-1530 • Fax 612/624-0879http://www.nceo.info

The University of Minnesota shall provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

This document is available in alternative formats upon request.

NCEO Core Staff

Martha L. Thurlow, DirectorDeb A. AlbusLinda GoldstoneMaureen HawesErik LarsonSheryl S. LazarusKristi K. Liu

Charity Funfe Tatah Mentan Michael L. MooreDarrell PetersonChristopher Rogers Kathy StrunkTerri VandercookYi-Chen Wu

The Center is supported through Cooperative Agreements (#H326G160001) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Develop-ment, University of Minnesota. The contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but does not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Depart-ment of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorse-ment by the federal government.

Project Officer: David Egnor

In collaboration with:

Executive Summary

States continue to navigate the shift that came with the 1% threshold on participation in alter-nate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). This shift, following the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, limited participation in the AA-AAAS to students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities.” Although states need to maintain the threshold on participation in AA-AAAS, they are not allowed to infringe on the decision making of indi-vidualized education program (IEP) teams. To assist IEP teams in their decision making, states have attempted to create clear definitions, guidelines, and decision-making tools.

This report provides an updated review of state criteria and guidelines for participation in AA-AAAS. We analyze state criteria for participation and factors not to use as the basis of decision making, as well as how states define students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities.” As the resources on state websites have increased, topics covered have expanded to include other information found in the criteria and guidelines: information for parents/guardians, English learner (EL) considerations, and exemptions from participation in the AA-AAAS.

This report also compares current findings to results from the previous review, conducted in 2017. There was an overall increase in information available for this review, including nearly twice as many states with an explicit definition of students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities” or “significant cognitive disabilities” (N=36, compared to N=17 in 2017). Although our findings showed that the top participation criteria states use and listed not to use, as well as the definition components of students taking AA-AAAS, did not substantially change from the previous report, there were additional criteria and factors found that reflected broader topics (e.g., consequences of the decision).

Across states in this analysis, the most frequently mentioned criteria for participation in AA-AAAS remained: (a) significantly affected cognitive and adaptive function (N=50), (b) extensive individualized instruction or supports (N=49), and (c) alternate or modified curriculum standards (N=49). The most common factors states required IEP teams not to use in participation deci-sions were: (a) disability label, placement, or service (N=45); (b) social, cultural, linguistic, or environmental factor (N=45); and (c) excessive absences (N=44). In the 36 states that met the criteria of having an explicit definition of “significant cognitive disabilities,” the most common components of their definitions were: (a) “significant cognitive deficits” (N=35) and (b) “poor adaptive skill level” (N=34).

Other information found in state materials addressed such topics as informed parent consent, considerations for ELs, and exemptions. We describe the extent to which states explicitly ad-dressed parents in decision-making forms and procedures, and the information that states ex-plicitly say needs to be shared with parents. In addition, some states had new mentions of EL

considerations in their materials, including a few that addressed criteria used for AA-AAAS in relation to alternate English language proficiency (ELP) assessments and vice versa. A few states also addressed whether to exempt students who have no current reliable response or to provide another tier of assessment for those students.

This report also addresses whether there are substantive differences between some states’ defini-tion of “most significant” cognitive disabilities and other states’ definitions of simply “significant” cognitive disabilities. Finally, we summarize the growing body of training materials and tools provided by states to help local IEP teams make decisions for student participation in AA-AAAS.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... iii

Overview .........................................................................................................................................1

Method .............................................................................................................................................2

Results ..............................................................................................................................................2

Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS .......................................................................................2

Factors Not to Use as Basis for AA-AAAS Decisions ...........................................................4

Format of Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS .......................................................................5

Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities .....................................................................7

Components of State Definitions .............................................................................................9

Parent Information in Alternate Assessment Materials ..........................................................10

English Learner Mentions in AA-AAAS Materials ...............................................................12

Exemption and Non-Exemption Information for AA-AAAS ................................................13

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................14

References ......................................................................................................................................16

Appendix A: Email Requesting Verification .................................................................................17

Appendix B: Sample State Profile Sent for Verification ...............................................................19

Appendix C: Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS ........................................................................23

Appendix C: Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessment .......................................................26

Appendix D: Factors Not to Be Used as Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS .............................31

Appendix D: Factors Not to Be Used as Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessment ............34

Appendix E: Format of Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessment .......................................37

Appendix F: Examples of Participation Criteria Formats ..............................................................41

Appendix G: State Alternate Assessment Resources for “Other” Format Category ......................51

Appendix H: Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities .....................................................53

Appendix I: Criteria Included in Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities .......................75

Appendix J: How Parent/Guardian is Informed in Materials for AA-AAAS ................................81

Appendix K: Parent Information Texts ..........................................................................................83

Appendix L: Mentions of English Learners or Language in Criteria Evidence for Alternate Assessment ...........................................................................................91

Appendix M: Nature of English Learner Mentions .......................................................................93

Appendix N: Exemption and Non-Exemption Texts ....................................................................105

1NCEO

Overview

In response to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, states have worked to modify and clarify their policies on participation in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achieve-ment standards (AA-AAAS). Prior to ESSA, states were allowed to count 1% of students as proficient using AA-AAAS; after ESSA, states were allowed to have no more than 1.0% of students participate in AA-AAAS. This change to federal law increased the need for states to clearly communicate who the students with the “most significant cognitive disabilities” are and to offer decision-making tools that help individualized education program (IEP) teams avoid misidentifying students for the AA-AAAS.

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) analyzed state AA-AAAS participa-tion policies in 2017 (Thurlow et al., 2017). After providing a history of AA-AAAS, starting with the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, the 2017 NCEO report documented the concerns related to the students participating in AA-AAAS since that time (e.g., the possible inappropriate identification of students in certain disability categories, such as specific learning disabilities, for participation in AA-AAAS). That report also cited studies that examined learner characteristics and state assessment participation poli-cies, with specific attention to AA-AAAS criteria (Albus & Thurlow, 2012; Musson et al., 2010; Towles-Reeves & Kearns, 2012; Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995; Towles-Reeves, Kearns, Kleinert, & Kleinert, 2009).

NCEO’s 2017 report on AA-AAAS participation criteria found that all states, as well as the District of Columbia (hereafter referred to as a state), had participation guidelines at the start of the 2017-18 school year, and that the three most common participation criteria were: (a) signifi-cant cognitive disabilities or low intellectual and adaptive functioning; (b) extensive, intensive, individualized instruction and supports; and (c) use of an alternate or modified curriculum. The most common factors that states instructed IEP teams not to use as the basis for participation decisions were: (a) social, cultural, linguistic, or environmental factors, such as English learner (EL) status; (b) excessive absences; (c) poor performance or impact on the accountability sys-tem; and (d) disability label, placement, or services. Although all 51 states had participation guidelines, only 17 states had explicit definitions of “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” in online materials.

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on state participation criteria and guidelines for AA-AAAS. As the resources on state websites have increased, our coverage of topics they address has expanded. In this report, we analyze the same primary elements used in our previous report: criteria for participation, factors identified by states not to use as the basis for decisions, formats of resources provided, and the existence of explicit definitions of students with “signifi-

2 NCEO

cant cognitive disabilities.” To these we add analyses of information covered in state documents about AA-AAAS participation: the type of information provided to parents, the extent to which ELs are addressed, and the inclusion of information about exemptions.

Method

In January and February 2019, NCEO staff searched the websites of state education agencies to collect AA-AAAS policy information in the following areas: (a) participation criteria for the AA-AAAS; (b) factors that should not be used in making decisions; (c) the format in which information was presented; (d) the definition of “student with a significant cognitive disability”; and (e) other notes. Items in (e) other notes included information provided to parents, informa-tion about ELs, and exemptions. The information was summarized and entered into verification forms that were sent to the states.

The collected documents included the most recently dated materials of the following types: test administration manuals, accessibility manuals, participation guideline documents, state home pages for the AA-AAAS, state materials for parents on the AA-AAAS (including Frequently Asked Questions – FAQ –pages online), and professional development materials for educators such as webinar or module transcripts.

For a state to count as having a definition of students with significant cognitive disabilities, one of its documents needed to explicitly provide a definition (e.g., “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are…”). Usually these definitions were found in companion text for tools, although a few were included in descriptive text within tools (e.g., a graphic showing participation criteria). Repeated participation criteria were not enough to be counted as a definition for this analysis.

In March 2019, verification emails were sent to the special education directors of the 51 states. These email requests were sent with tables summarizing policy on participation in AA-AAAS for state review (see Appendices A and B for examples). Twenty-one (41.2%) states responded to the verification request.

Results

Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS

All 51 states had participation criteria for AA-AAAS online. Criteria were defined as elements that needed to be present for a student to participate in AA-AAAS. For example, if a state re-quired that a parent or guardian be informed of the effects of the decision in order for a student

3NCEO

to participate, this was counted as a criterion for participation. Nine criteria were identified that were shared by at least two states; an “other” category encompassed all additional criteria. Figure 1 shows the most frequently mentioned criteria: significantly affected cognitive and adaptive function (N=50), extensive individualized instruction or supports (N=49), alternate or modified curriculum standards (N=49), has disability or IEP (N=49), and parent is informed (N=26). To view the details by state, and the specific notes for the “other” category, see Appendix C.

Criteria mentioned by 12 or fewer states included: cannot show learning on general assess-ment, affects post-school outcomes, reference to standard deviation on test (i.e., assessments of cognitive or adaptive functioning), and no reading skills or student expression not through oral or written communication.

Figure 1. AA-AAAS Participation Criteria (N=51)

6  

Figure 1. AA-AAAS Participation Criteria (N=51)

2

3

3

12

17

26

49

49

49

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

No reading skills or expression not throughoral/ written communication

Reference to standard deviation on test

Affects post school outcomes

Cannot show learning on general assessment

Other

Parent informed

Has disability or IEP

Alternate or modified curriculum standards

Extensive individualized instruction and/ orsupports

Significantly affected cognitive and adaptivefunction

Number of States

States listed many sources of possible evidence in their state policies and forms to encourage multiple perspectives of a student’s abilities and skills for each of the criteria areas. Examples of some of these sources of evidence included (see Appendix C for details):

• Results of individual cognitive ability test

• Results of adaptive behavior skills assessment

4 NCEO

• Results of individual and group administered achievement tests

• Results of informal assessment

• Results of individual reading assessments

• Results of district-wide alternate assessments

• Results of language assessments including English language proficiency (ELP) assess-ments, if applicable

• Examples of curriculum, instructional objectives, and materials, including work samples from both school and community-based instruction

• Present levels of academic and functional performance, goals, and objectives from the IEP

• Data from scientific research-based interventions

• Progress monitoring data

• Teacher-collected data and checklists

• Transition plan for students age 16 and older unless state policy or the IEP team determines a younger age is appropriate

Factors Not to Use as Basis for AA-AAAS Decisions

Forty-six states identified factors not to be used as the basis for decisions to participate in AA-AAAS. The factors most frequently mentioned in state materials are shown in Figure 2. Of the states that listed factors not to use, nearly all included the following: disability label, place-ment, or service (N=45); social, cultural, linguistic, or environmental factor (N=45); excessive absences (N=44); and poor performance or impact on accountability system (N=43). Other factors mentioned frequently in state policies were: administrator decision (N=38), foreseen disruptive behavior (N=37), foreseen emotional duress (N=35), EL status (N=30), and need for accommodations (N=29). Other factors, mentioned in fewer than 10 states’ policies, were: certain disabilities (e.g., specific learning disabilities), reference to 1.0% cap, using IQ scores alone, and an “other” category. For more details on the data in Figure 2, see Appendix D.

Of the 45 states that listed “social, cultural, linguistic or environmental factors,” among charac-teristics not to use, 29 of them made the additional distinction of listing “English learner status” separately. In one state, counted as having both criteria, the two criteria were found not in the

5NCEO

same document but in two different ones that appeared to be used concurrently. A few states that mentioned EL status also added text addressing the appropriate use of this factor in mak-ing decisions about participation in the state’s alternate ELP assessment, discussed later in this report. Seventeen states listed only one criterion: one state listed EL status only, and 16 states listed social, cultural, linguistic, or environmental factors only.

Another combination of closely related factors was states’ mention of “administrator decision” and the “1% cap.” Of the 38 states that listed administrator decision, three states also separately mentioned the 1% cap. One state referenced the 1% cap only.

Figure 2. Factors Not to be Used as Basis of Decisions for AA-AAAS Participation (N=46)

9  

Figure 2. Factors Not to be Used as Basis of Decisions for AA-AAAS Participation (N=46)

    

244

72930

353738

43444545

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

IQ scores  alone1% cap reference

OtherOther disabilities (e.g. SLD)Need for accommodations

English learner statusForeseen emotional duress

Foreseen disruptive behaviorAdministrator decision

Poor performance or impact on accountability systemExcessive absences

Social, cultural, linguistic or environmental factorDisability label, placement or service

Number of States

Format of Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS

All 51 states communicated information about making participation decisions for AA-AAAS, but they did so using different formats, which are listed in Figure 3. Most states offered some type of descriptive text or checklist (N=40) for IEP teams to use during decision making. Often, states paired the descriptive text in a companion document, or within the same document as the checklist. About half of the states provided a decision tree or flow chart (N=25). A handful of states offered information in other formats, including guideline charts or factor lists, on-demand training with audio/visual components or webinars, student case examples, PowerPoint slides, or rubrics. See Appendix E for more details on Figure 3. For examples of state tools, see Appendix F.

6 NCEO

Figure 3. Format of Criteria for Participation in AA-AAAS (N=51)

11  

Figure 3. Format of Criteria for Participation in AA-AAAS (N=51)

2

3

3

4

5

25

40

40

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Rubric

PowerPoint slides

Case examples

Training audio/visual, webinar

Other guide chart or figure

Flow chart/ decision tree

Description/ text

Checklist

Number of States

Several decision flow charts included information not typical in other states, such as brief mentions of language or communication skills, to direct decision-makers to choose alternate ELP assessments or to provide guidance on how to select the proper version of AA-AAAS for students (e.g., for those who have no reliable demonstration of communication).

Two states used rubrics that paired questions about decision criteria areas with a continuum of defining characteristics, along with instructions on how to interpret the results for participa-tion. This differs from typical yes or no checklists, instead presenting shades of meaning for each criterion. The two states used nearly identical rubrics, but provided different guidance to interpret the answers to determine participation (see example below of one of the five sections of rubrics in a state tool).

13  

Ohio Department of Education (2018, November). Companion to Participation Guidelines and Decision-Making Flowchart.

7NCEO

States varied in the amount of direction given to determine participation, with some indicating how many “yes” responses would indicate that the student should participate in the AA-AAAS. See Appendix G for a list of links to examples of state tools and professional development of-ferings.

Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities

In this section, we present the number of states that had an explicit definition of the students who are eligible to take AA-AAAS. To be counted as having an explicit definition, states needed to use definitive phrasing, such as “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are…” or “significant cognitive disabilities are characterized by….” This included instances in which states used an explicit definition structure to convey variability. We counted definitions using this phrasing in any publicly available documents, regardless of whether they were guidelines or tools. We did not count lists of characteristics or textual descriptions if they did not use ex-plicit phrasing.

Figure 4 shows the 36 states found to have explicit definitions. We distinguish between those states that used the term students with “significant cognitive disabilities” (N=12) or “most sig-nificant cognitive disabilities” (N=24) in their definitions.

Figure 4. States with Explicit Definitions of Students with Significant and Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities

15  

WA MT ND

OR

NV

CA

ID WY

UT

AZ

CO

NM

SD

NE

KS

TX

OK

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MI

OH

KY

MS

TN

FL

GA

NC VA PA

NY

ME

WV

AK

HI

VT NH

CT NJ

DE

IN MA

RI

AL MD

States with “most significant” in definition (N=12)

States with “significant” in definition (N=24)

States without an explicit definition (N=15)

SC DC

8 NCEO

The following are some examples of definitions found in state materials:

• “A student with a significant cognitive disability is one who has records that indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impact intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is defined as actions essential for an individual to live independently and to function safely in daily life. Having a significant cognitive disability is not determined by an IQ test score, but rather a holistic understanding of a student.” (District of Columbia)

• “…the designation of ‘the most significant cognitive disability’ is left to the professional judgment of the school psychologist and other professionals contributing to the body of evidence gathered during the evaluation and considered by the IEP Team. Generally, such students can be characterized as having intellectual functioning well below average (typi-cally associated with cognitive measures indicating an IQ below 55, / 3.0 standard devia-tions or more below the mean) that exists concurrently with deficits in adaptive functioning. This reference is only offered to help distinguish between students who meet eligibility criteria to receive special education services as a student with an Intellectual Disability and students with the most significant cognitive disability. The words ‘typically associated with IQ below 55’ allow for some district/school flexibility; it is not intended to be an absolute requirement. For students with IQ measured in the 55-70 range, additional factors related to the severity and impact of the disability must be taken into account when considering the selection of alternate academic achievement standards and assessment.” (Colorado)

• “Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are typically characterized by significantly below average general cognitive functioning. This commonly includes a student with intelligence test scores two or more standard deviations below the mean on a standardized individually administered intelligence test, occurring with commensurate deficits in adaptive behavior that are frequently also evident in early childhood. Further, the cognitive disability must significantly impact the child’s educational performance and ability to generalize learning from one setting to another. Students with the most signifi-cant cognitive disabilities in general require highly specialized education and/or social, psychological, and medical services to access an educational program. These students may also rely on adults for personal care and have medical conditions that require physical/verbal supports, and assistive technology devices. These intensive and on-going supports and services are typically provided directly by educators and are delivered across all edu-cational settings.” (Oregon)

• “The term ‘significant cognitive disability’ is not a new separate category of disability. It is a designation given to a small number of students with disabilities for purposes of par-ticipation in the statewide student assessment program. This subgroup of students referred

9NCEO

to in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as having ‘significant cognitive disabilities’ constitutes less than one percent of the student population. The students are (1) within one or more of the existing categories of disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (e.g., intellectual disability, autism, multiple disabilities, traumatic brain injury); and (2) whose cognitive impairments affect adaptive function and may prevent them from attaining grade-level achievement standards, even with systematic instruction.” (Kansas)

• “As presented in the participation criteria for the alternate assessment, a student has a significant cognitive disability if their records indicate a disability or multiple disabilities that significantly impacts intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior. This is not to say that IQ score cannot be a consideration and one piece of evidence when determining eligibility, but it should never be used in isolation. And no specific IQ cut score should be inferred as defining eligibility.” (Ohio)

The list of all state definitions gathered for use in this analysis is included in Appendix H.

Components of State Definitions

The components that states used to define the population taking AA-AAAS are shown in Fig-ure 5. (See Appendix I for additional detail.) Figure 5 includes only those 36 states that met our criteria of having an explicit definition. Nearly all state definitions included “significant cognitive deficits” (N=35) and “poor adaptive skill level” (N=34). Most of these states noted pervasive needs across settings or time (N=23), followed by not basing decisions solely on IQ scores (N=19) and the need for extensive, individualized, direct instruction (N=16). About a third of the definitions included students not being able to reach grade level standards (N=13), referencing an IQ or adaptive test score (N=10), or another component (N=10).

10 NCEO

Figure 5. Components of State Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities

16  

Figure 5. Components of State Definitions of Significant Cognitive Disabilities

22

55

1010

1316

1923

3435

0 10 20 30 40

Not due to excessive absencesNot due to social, cultural, or economic factorsNeed for Communication systems/ Assist. Tech.

Not due to other disabilities (e.g. SLD)Reference score for IQ and/or adaptive function

OtherUnable to reach grade level standards

Extensive, individualized, direct instructionNot solely based on IQ score, holistic

Pervasive needs across settings or timePoor adaptive skill level

Significant cognitive deficits

Number of States

Five states included in their definitions considerations of whether a student needed certain accommodations, such as communication devices or assistive technology. Five or fewer states included factors not to consider when determining whether a student has a “significant” or “most significant” cognitive disability: certain disabilities; excessive absences; and social,

cultural, or economic factors.

Of those states referencing IQ scores in their definitions, whether or not they were ex-plicit about the holistic use of scores, eight used the “most significant cognitive dis-abilities” phrasing but cited very different IQs to be considered eligible for the AA-AAAS. The IQs ranged from 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean. There were no clear differences in the definition components between the states that defined “significant cognitive disabilities” and “most significant cognitive disabilities.”

Parent Information in Alternate Assessment Materials

Twenty-six states had some level of information about informing parents or guardians about what student participation in AA-AAAS means in terms of the type of standards used and the impact on post-school outcomes, such as type of diplomas offered. This information was found in either state participation criteria forms or accompanying text. The information varied in whether or not parent permission had to be documented. Although some states required parent signatures for students to take AA-AAAS, others required only members of the IEP team to sign.

11NCEO

Figure 6 shows the number of states that included various elements of information for parents. Almost all states that had information for parents clearly identified on the form that the student would take the alternate assessment (N=25), and most were explicit about parents understanding that the AA-AAAS measures student performance on alternate achievement standards (N=18). Parent signatures or initials were required by most states (N=17). Although states often have parents sign IEP forms separate from AA-AAAS decision forms (e.g., practices of using sig-natures “on file” over time), the inclusion of these signatures were distinct for the purpose of participation in the AA-AAAS. The potential impact on post-school outcomes, often specifying diploma options available to students, was included in a majority of state forms (N=16). A small number of states provided information for parents on what they could do if they disagreed with an IEP team decision (N=3).

Figure 6. Parent Information (N=26)

18  

Figure 6. Parent Information (N=26)

3

16

17

18

25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Inform of options if parent/ guardian does not agree

Effect on diploma type

Parent/guardian signature or initials

Mentions alternate standards

Student will take alternate assessment

Number of States

Although most states had requirements to “inform” parents, some expected a higher level of interaction, using the term “understanding.” For example, one state specified a process of pro-viding parents with an information booklet and ensuring that they were able to ask questions about anything not understood. Although one state mentioned providing parents with informa-tion about AA-AAAS reports in a language that they understand, no states mentioned linguistic considerations for parents when making participation decisions. See Appendices J (how parent is informed) and K (text of parent information) for further details.

One state included a requirement not only to inform parents but also to inform the student. In this state, the only state to include such a requirement in the materials we reviewed, the student is to be informed about what the decision to participate in the AA-AAAS would mean for the student.

12 NCEO

English Learner Mentions in AA-AAAS Materials

Twenty-six states had some mention of ELs or language considerations in their documents about alternate assessment participation. Of these, 24 states had EL information focused on decisions for the AA-AAAS; two states commented in these materials only about alternate ELP assess-ment decisions. Of the 24 states, 22 states referenced ELs in their information on what type of evidence to consider in meeting criteria for participation and two addressed the one-year EL testing exemption for English language arts (ELA).

Figure 7 shows the factors mentioned by the 24 states with EL information on decisions. The highest number of states noted what may interfere with ELs being able to show their abilities, including their adaptive skills (N=13) and English language proficiency (N=12). The latter cat-egory included states that generally referred to performance on ELP assessments and one state that specifically mentioned performance on alternate ELP assessments. A smaller number of states (N=6) noted that ELs should be assessed for cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior in their first language and with linguistic and sociocultural factors taken into account. The fol-lowing is an example of such a requirement:

An English Learner should be considered for the alternate assessment if (a) his/her intellectual functioning indicates a significant cognitive disability using assessments in his/her home language as appropriate, and (b) he/she meets the alternate participation guidelines. Assessments of adaptive behavior and communication should take into account linguistic and sociocultural factors for valid interpretation of these assess-ments. (IDEA Section 300.304(3)(c)(1) as cited in Maine, 2018, p. 6)

Figure 7. Mentions of EL or Language in AA-AAAS Criteria (N=24)

20  

Figure 7. Mentions of EL or Language in Criteria (N=24)

1

1

2

2

2

6

12

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Ensure native language needs met to show academicperformance

Students only receiving EL services ineligible

One year EL exemption policy

Alt. ELP assessment as criteria

Language assessments

 IQ tests in student's first language

EL assessments

What may interfere in ELs showing abilities (e.g.,adaptive tests)

Number of States

13NCEO

Two states mentioned language assessments as potential evidence; because they did not specify whether English or other languages were intended, we listed this as a component separate from ELP assessments. Two states mentioned using alternate ELP assessment scores as criteria. Two states mentioned the newly arrived ELs’ one year exemption from taking ELA content assess-ments. One state mentioned that if a student only received EL services they were ineligible, and another state mentioned ensuring that all students have a personalized communication system that includes native languages to demonstrate academic performance. For more details on data in Figure 7, see Appendix L.

Four of the 24 states addressed criteria to use when making decisions about the participation of ELs in the alternate ELP tests as well as AA-AAAS. Two of these states said the decision made for a student to participate in the AA-AAAS would apply to alternate ELP assessments. Likewise, one of those two states said if there was a decision for an EL to take the alternate ELP assessment, the decision would apply to participation in the AA-AAAS. Another state indicated that it had separate criteria for deciding whether ELs take the alternate ELP assessment and whether they take an alternate content assessment. The fourth state asked in its decision chart for the AA-AAAS whether the student was an EL and whether the student had a significant cognitive disability. If the answer to both questions was yes, the student became eligible for the alternate ELP assessment, but further details were not provided. See Appendices L (mentions of EL or language) and M (nature of mentions) for details.

Other mentions of ELs in alternate ELP tests, with one state each, included the following require-ments: (a) medical and “no reliable communication response” exemptions apply to AA-AAAS and ELP assessments, (b) decision makers collaborate with EL staff in decision making, (c) social/linguistic factors not be the sole exclusionary criteria for an alternate ELP test, and (d) any findings of disproportionality must address language status.

Exemption and Non-Exemption Information for AA-AAAS

This section describes the information made available in, or in close proximity to, the AA-AAAS information that addressed exemptions (e.g., in an AA-AAAS document or linked from an AA-AAAS web page). Six states had some type of information about exemptions that fell into one or more categories. Four states had a medical circumstance category, and three states included extraordinary circumstances that ranged from the severity of a communication or emotional disability to events such as a death in family. Two states mentioned the one-year EL exemption for ELA assessments. In addition, two states had exemptions based on a student not having a reliable form of communication, although one of these states added a new tier of AA-AAAS designed for these students. One state had an exemption for parents to opt a student out of test-ing, but did not reference extraordinary or medical circumstances.

14 NCEO

Three states had information about either having no opt-out from testing option, or requiring students to participate in the AA-AAAS even if they did not have a reliable form of commu-nication. Five states had language indicating that a student who qualified for the AA-AAAS would take the AA-AAAS for all content areas. One state had an option for students to take an AA-AAAS in one content area and a general assessment in another content area, with or without accommodations, but the state indicated that this was rare. See Appendix N for details.

Discussion

This analysis of AA-AAAS participation policies follows previous reviews (Albus & Thurlow, 2012; Musson et al., 2010; Thurlow et al., 1995; Thurlow et al., 2017). Its findings reflect many of the previous results, with some additional observations. States continue to refine their AA-AAAS participation criteria and guidelines to address the federal 1.0% participation threshold and to avoid possible unintended consequences of misidentifying students for the AA-AAAS.

The most often identified criteria for participating in AA-AAAS in 2017 (significantly affected cognitive and adaptive function, extensive individualized instruction and/or supports, and al-ternative or modified curriculum standards) became even more frequent in 2019; each of these criteria was shared by 49 or 50 states. Some states also required informing parents (N=26), which often entailed providing information on possible consequences for diplomas and post-school outcomes. For a few states, expectations that a student’s disability would affect post-school outcomes was also introduced as a criterion in decision making.

The four most frequent factors identified as those not to use as the basis for participation deci-sions stayed the same from 2017 to 2019: (a) disability label, placement, or service; (b) social, cultural, linguistic, or environmental factors; (c) excessive absences; and (d) poor performance or impact on accountability system. A handful of additional states subscribed to those criteria in 2019 compared to 2017, and new factors were added to the list. For example, although the previous factor of social, cultural, linguistic, or environmental factors increased from 41 to 45 states, 30 states also made EL status a separate factor. The number of states listing administrator decision rose from 29 to 38, and the number of states listing a student’s need for accommoda-tions rose from 24 to 29. Four states listed a new factor of not letting the state 1.0% threshold affect local decisions.

In the 2017 review, 17 states were found to have an explicit definition of students with “sig-nificant cognitive disabilities.” In 2019, an explicit definition was found for more than twice as many states (N=36). One limitation of this study is that slightly less than half of the states verified their information (N=21), which made it difficult to pinpoint official definitions in cases where states used definition-like language in multiple places. Still, we did not find any essential

15NCEO

differences in definition components between the states that defined “significant cognitive dis-abilities” and those that defined “most significant cognitive disabilities.” The increase in states with explicit definitions did not change the top four components used in definitions: significant cognitive deficits, poor adaptive skill level, pervasive needs across settings or time, and not solely based on IQ score. However, while accommodations use was listed by many states as a factor not to consider during participation decisions, five states referred to types of accommodations students use (i.e., communication systems and assistive technology) when defining students with “significant” or the “most significant” cognitive disabilities.

New analyses in this 2019 review included information on communicating with parents, making decisions for ELs, and granting exemptions from participation. Parent consent was mentioned by some states as a criterion for participation in AA-AAAS; often school staff were required to communicate potential effects of participation on post-secondary outcomes, specifically di-ploma options. The information on parent consent rarely established a process to ensure parent understanding (e.g., giving the parent opportunities for questions or providing information in a language used by the parent).

The number of states including information for ELs potentially eligible to participate in AA-AAAS increased between 2017 and 2019. Twenty-four states mentioned ELs in their sources of evidence to consider (e.g., ELP assessment performance) when making decisions about AA-AAAS participation, while 30 states included EL status as a factor not to use as the basis for a participation decision. Several states started to blend decision making for AA-AAAS and alternate ELP assessments, likely due to ELP assessments being administered at earlier grades than general assessments. Still, one state was explicit in maintaining separate criteria for alter-nate ELP assessments. In addition, because the validity of tests used to help make AA-AAAS participation decisions (e.g., adaptive functioning) is crucial, some states (N=6) described of-fering these tests in the language of the student as an ideal “as feasible.”

The one-year EL exemption from ELA testing was not the only type of exemption mentioned in materials addressing AA-AAAS participation. A handful of states had information on granting students exemptions because of extraordinary or medical circumstances or because they did not have a reliable form of communication. Of the two states that addressed a lack of reliable communication as a basis for exemption, one had recently made an AA-AAAS tier available for these students.

States disseminated information on AA-AAAS criteria and definitions in much the same for-mats as noted in the 2017 report (e.g., checklists, decision-trees, etc.). The exception was that a few more states used “other formats” such as case studies, rubrics, or on-demand multimedia training materials.

16 NCEO

References

Albus, D., & Thurlow, M. L. (2012). Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) participation policies (Synthesis Report 88). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Maine Department of Education. (2018, December). Guidance for IEP teams on participation decisions for the Maine’s Alternate Assessments. Retrieved from https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/Maine%20Participation%20Guidance_Rev%2012-28-18_0.pdf

Musson, J. E., Thomas, M. K., Towles-Reeves, E., & Kearns, J. F. (2010). An analysis of state alternate assessment participation guidelines. Journal of Special Education, 44(2), 67–78.

Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Flowers, C., Hart, L., Kerbel, A., Kleinert, H., & Thurlow, M. (2012). Learner characteristics inventory project report (A product of the NCSC validity evalua-tion). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center and State Collaborative.

Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J. (2009). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Journal of Special Education, 42, 241–254.

Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Larson, E. D., Albus, D. A., Liu, K. K., & Kwong, E. (2017). Alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Participation guide-lines and definitions (NCEO Report 406). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M. L., Scott, D. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1995). A compilation of states’ guidelines for including students with disabilities in assessments (Synthesis Report 17). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

17NCEO

Appendix A

Email Requesting Verification

The National Center on Educational Outcomes is examining the ways in which states address who participates in alternate assessment. Our goal is to examine:

a) Definitions of “significant cognitive disabilities” (SCD) (Note: Only states with documents

b) that contain explicit phrases defining/explaining SCD, such as “students with SCD are…”, “SCD are defined as…” etc., are identified as “defines SCD”);

c) Participation criteria for alternate assessment;

d) Format of participation criteria for alternate assessment

To address this goal, we reviewed your state website for assessment partici-pation guidelines and forms to document decision making during January and February 2019 and summarized them into tables, attached to this email, for your review.

Please verify all included information. Specifically, please return the tables that we have attached, noting your changes to them and the website source for these changes. Address your responses to Deb Albus via email [email address removed].

If you have any other questions about our request, please email Martha Thurlow or call at [phone number removed]. Please respond by Friday, March 22, 2019. Thank you for taking the time to provide this information.

Martha Thurlow, Director, NCEO

18 NCEO

19NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

B

Sam

ple

Sta

te P

rofil

e S

ent f

or V

erifi

catio

n

Wis

cons

in

A.

Defi

nitio

n of

“si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s”:

Wis

cons

in d

efine

s “si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s” a

s fol

low

s:G

UID

E TO

DET

ERM

ININ

G S

TUD

ENTS

WIT

H T

HE

MO

ST S

IGN

IFIC

AN

T C

OG

NIT

IVE

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES

p. 5

Sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

cha

ract

eriz

ed b

y sc

ores

on

verb

al o

r non

verb

al a

sses

smen

ts o

f cog

nitio

n th

at a

re a

t lea

st 2

½–3

stan

dard

de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean.

Aca

dem

ic d

efici

ts o

r diffi

culti

es a

lone

do

not i

ndic

ate

that

a st

uden

t has

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Fur

-th

er, a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y w

ill b

e pe

rvas

ive,

affe

ctin

g st

uden

t lea

rnin

g ac

ross

con

tent

are

as a

nd in

soci

al a

nd c

omm

unity

set-

tings

. Not

all

stud

ents

with

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s hav

e th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Stu

dent

s sho

uld

be c

aref

ully

con

sid-

ered

for

the

alte

rnat

e ac

adem

ic a

chie

vem

ent s

tand

ards

, the

Wis

cons

in E

ssen

tial E

lem

ents

, and

they

shou

ld n

ot a

utom

atic

ally

be

assi

gned

to th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent b

ased

on

thei

r id

entifi

ed d

isab

ility

cat

egor

y. M

any

stud

ents

elig

ible

to re

ceiv

e sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n se

rvic

es u

nder

thes

e ca

tego

rical

labe

ls a

re a

ble

to p

artic

ipat

e in

gen

eral

cur

ricul

um, w

hen

prov

ided

with

spec

ially

des

igne

d in

stru

ctio

n,

as w

ell a

ny n

eede

d re

late

d se

rvic

es, s

uppl

emen

tary

aid

s and

serv

ices

(e.g

. ins

truct

iona

l acc

omm

odat

ions

), an

d pr

ogra

m m

odifi

catio

ns

and

supp

orts

for s

choo

l sta

ff. F

or te

chni

cal a

ssis

tanc

e on

obt

aini

ng a

leve

l of c

ogni

tion

for s

tude

nts w

ho m

ay b

e di

fficu

lt to

ass

ess,

plea

se

revi

ew th

e G

uida

nce

and

Wor

kshe

et o

n O

btai

ning

a V

alid

Cog

nitiv

e Ab

ilitie

s Ass

essm

ent f

ound

on

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Pub

lic In

stru

ctio

n (D

PI) I

ntel

lect

ual D

isab

ilitie

s web

page

.

Ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or re

late

s to

inde

pend

ence

in e

very

day

livin

g sk

ills,

incl

udin

g in

terp

erso

nal a

nd so

cial

inte

ract

ions

acr

oss m

ultip

le se

t-tin

gs. T

o be

con

side

red

a st

uden

t with

a m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity,

stud

ents

shou

ld d

emon

stra

te d

efici

ts in

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or

with

scor

es th

at a

re a

t lea

st 2

½–3

stan

dard

dev

iatio

ns b

elow

the

mea

n in

at l

east

two

adap

tive

skill

dom

ains

bel

ow.

• C

once

ptua

l ski

lls: r

ecep

tive

and

expr

essi

ve la

ngua

ge, r

eadi

ng a

nd w

ritin

g, m

oney

con

cept

s, s

elf-

dire

ctio

n.

• So

cial

ski

lls: i

nter

pers

onal

, res

pons

ibili

ty, s

elf-

este

em, f

ollo

ws

rule

s, o

beys

law

s, is

not

gul

lible

, and

avo

ids

vict

imiz

atio

n.

• P

ract

ical

ski

lls: p

erso

nal a

ctiv

ities

of

daily

livi

ng s

uch

as e

atin

g, d

ress

ing,

mob

ility

and

toile

ting;

inst

rum

enta

l act

iviti

es o

f da

ily

livin

g su

ch a

s pr

epar

ing

mea

ls, t

akin

g m

edic

atio

n, u

sing

the

tele

phon

e, m

anag

ing

mon

ey, u

sing

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d do

ing

hous

e-ke

epin

g ac

tiviti

es; o

ccup

atio

nal s

kills

; mai

ntai

ning

a s

afe

envi

ronm

ent

Sour

ce: h

ttps:

//dpi

.wi.g

ov/s

ites/

defa

ult/fi

les/

imce

/spe

d/pd

f/msc

d-gu

ide-

to-d

eter

min

ing-

stud

ents

-with

-msc

d.pd

f

20 NCEO

Bas

ed o

n th

e ab

ove,

the

follo

win

g cr

iteri

a ar

e id

entifi

ed a

s defi

nitiv

e of

“si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s”;

State

Sign

ifica

nt

cogn

itive

/ in

telle

ctua

l de

ficits

Poor

ad

ap-

tive

skill

le

vel

Una

ble

to re

ach

grad

e le

vel s

tan-

dard

s

Exte

nsiv

e,

indi

vidu

al-

ized

, dire

ct

inst

ruct

ion

Perv

asiv

e ne

eds

acro

ss

setti

ngs o

r tim

e

Ref

eren

ce

scor

e fo

r IQ

and

/or

adap

tive

func

tion

Not

sole

ly

base

d on

IQ

scor

e,

holis

tic

Not

due

to

exce

ssiv

e ab

senc

es

Not

due

to

oth

er

disa

bili-

ties (

e.g.

, SL

D)

Not

due

to

soci

al,

cultu

ral,

or

econ

omic

fa

ctor

sW

IX

XX

X

B.

Part

icip

atio

n cr

iteri

a fo

r al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent

State

Has

dis

abili

ty o

r IE

PSC

D, o

r sig

nific

antly

af

fect

ed c

ogni

tive

and

adap

tive

func

tion

Alte

rnat

e or

mod

i-fie

d cu

rric

ulum

st

anda

rds

Exte

nsiv

e in

divi

d-ua

lized

inst

ruct

ion

and/

or su

ppor

ts

Can

not s

how

lear

ning

on

gen

eral

ass

essm

ent

Oth

er

WI

XX

XX

XO

ther

: Par

ent i

nfor

med

abo

ut d

iplo

ma

Und

er 3

00.1

60, I

EP te

ams m

ust i

nfor

m p

aren

ts o

n th

e di

ffere

nce

betw

een

asse

ssm

ents

bas

ed o

n gr

ade-

leve

l aca

dem

ic a

chie

vem

ent

stan

dard

s and

thos

e ba

sed

on a

ltern

ate

acad

emic

ach

ieve

men

t sta

ndar

ds a

nd h

ow p

artic

ipat

ing

in a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent m

ay d

elay

or

oth

erw

ise

affe

ct th

e st

uden

t fro

m c

ompl

etin

g th

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r a re

gula

r hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a. E

SSA

als

o st

ates

that

a st

u-de

nt p

artic

ipat

ing

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent c

anno

t be

prec

lude

d fr

om a

ttem

ptin

g to

com

plet

e th

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r a re

gula

r hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a. S

ampl

e IE

P Fo

rm I-

7A in

clud

ed in

App

endi

ces A

, inc

lude

s par

ent n

otifi

catio

n as

par

t of t

he p

artic

ipat

ion

guid

e-lin

es fo

r par

ticip

atin

g in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t.

21NCEO

Fact

ors n

ot to

be

used

for

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t par

ticip

atio

n

State

Soci

al,

cultu

ral,

lang

uage

or

envi

ronm

ent

fact

ors

Dis

abil-

ity la

bel,

plac

emen

t or

ser-

vice

s

Exce

ssiv

e ab

senc

esN

eed

for

acco

mm

-od

atio

ns

Fore

seen

em

otio

nal

dure

ss

Fore

seen

di

srup

tive

beha

vior

Poor

per

-fo

rman

ce o

r im

pact

on

acco

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

Adm

inis

-tra

tor d

eci-

sion

Oth

er d

is-

abili

ties

(e.g

., SL

D)

Oth

er

WI

XX

XX

XX

XX

XSo

urce

:

Oth

er: E

nglis

h Le

arne

r (EL

) sta

tus

C.

Form

at o

f par

ticip

atio

n cr

iteri

a fo

r al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent

Des

crip

tion

/text

Flow

-cha

rt/

deci

sion

tree

Che

cklis

tO

ther

A

ltern

ate A

sses

smen

t

WI

XX

XD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s (D

LM)

Sour

ce:

http

s://d

pi.w

i.gov

/site

s/de

faul

t/file

s/im

ce/s

ped/

pdf/m

scd-

guid

e-to

-det

erm

inin

g-st

uden

ts-w

ith-m

scd.

pdf

22 NCEO

23NCEO

Appendix C

Participation Criteria for AA-AAAS

State

Has disability

or IEP

Significantly affected cognitive

and adaptive function

Alternate or modified curriculum standards

Extensive individualized

instruction and/ or supports

Cannot show learning on general as-sessment

AL X X* X

AK X X X X

AZ X X X X

AR X X X X

CA X X X X

CO X X X X

CT X X X X

DE X X X X

DC X X X X

FL X X X X XGA X X X X

HI X X X X

ID X X* X X

IL X X X X

IN X X X X

IA X X X X

KS X X X X

KY X X X X

LA X X X X

ME X X X X

MD X X X X XMA X X X X XMI X X X X

MN X X X* X XMS X X X

MO X X X* X

MT X X X* X

NE X X X X

NV X X

24 NCEO

*See notes below.

AL: Significantly cognitively disabled: In Alabama, the definition of a student with significant cognitive disabilities includes the following “a student with an intelligent quotient (IQ) of three standard deviations below the mean, which is an IQ of 55 or below.”ID Alternate or modified curriculum standards: The student’s course of study is primarily functional-skill and living-skill oriented (typically not measured by State or district assessments). MN Alternate curriculum standards: The IEP team reviewed the student’s instructional program to ensure that the student is receiving instruction linked to the general education curriculum to the extent appropriate. If instruction is not linked to the general education curriculum, then the IEP team must review the student’s goals and determine how access to the general curriculum will be provided….AND regarding general assessment: The IEP team documented, in the IEP, reasons the MCA would not be an appropriate measure of the student’s academic progress and how the student would participate in statewide testing.MO Alternate standards: Does the student’s most significant cognitive disability impact the student’s access to the curriculum and requires specialized instruction? The student requires a highly specialized

State

Has disability

or IEP

Significantly affected cognitive

and adaptive function

Alternate or modified curriculum standards

Extensive individualized

instruction and/ or supports

Cannot show learning on general as-sessment

NH X X X X XNJ X X X X

NM X X X X XNY X X X

NC X X X X

ND X X X

OH X* X X X

OK X X X X

OR X X X X

PA X X X X

RI X X X X

SC X X X X

SD X X X X

TN X X X X

TX X X* X X*

UT X X X* X

VT X X X X

VA X X X X X*WA X X X X X*WV X X X X X*WI X X X X

WY X X X X XTotal 49 50 49 49 11

25NCEO

educational program with intensive supports and modification/accommodations AND daily instruction on a substantially different grade level from peers, AND intensive instructional strategies AND information through other methods than reading, AND alternate methods to express ideas/info

MT Alternate or modified curriculum standards: Do the student’s learning objectives and expected outcomes focus on functional application of skills, as illustrated in the student’s IEP annual goals and short-term objectives?TX Significantly cognitively disabled: STAAR Alternate 2 may only be considered if the student’s dis-ability includes intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior deficits that primarily and significantly affect the student’s ability to plan, comprehend, reason, and apply social and practical skills in everyday life. Extensive instruction and supports: A student with a significant cognitive disability demonstrates adaptive behaviors that are significantly impaired. This most likely will impact the student’s ability to live independently and will require specialized supports for the student to function safely in daily life across all life domains, not just the school environment.UT Alternate standards: Requires instruction through the Utah alternate achievement standards (Essen-tial Elements and Extended Core) The student’s course of study includes functional and life skills instruc-tion and may be eligible to participate in alternate assessments (DLM, UAA, KEEP Alternate, DIBELS Alternate, etc.). AND Student is learning content linked to the Utah Core Standards through the Alternate Achievement Standards, the Essential Elements and the Extended Core Standards for all content areas.VA General assessment: If the IEP Team determines that the student will participate in the VAAP instead of taking SOL tests with or without accommodations, a statement that addresses each of the following must be included in the IEP: why the student cannot participate in the regular assessment.WA General assessment: Finally, when an IEP team determines that the student should take an alter-nate assessment, the team must document in the IEP: 1) why the student cannot participate in the regular assessment, and 2) why the alternate assessment selected (i.e., WA-AIM and WIDA Alternate ACCESS) is appropriate to assess the student’s academic, or language if eligible, performance.WV General assessment: For students designated to take the WVASA, the IEP must specify that the student meets criteria for an alternate assessment, explaining why the student cannot participate in the WVGSA Grades 3-8 and CBA or SAT School Day, and document any accommodations used in accor-dance with WVS.326 procedures.

26 NCEO

Appendix C - continued

Participation Criteria for Alternate Assessment

StateParent

Informed

Reference to standard devia-

tion on test

No reading and expression not through oral/written

communication

Effects post

school outcomes Other

AL X X*AK XAZ XAR XCA XCOCTDE X X*DC XFL X X*GAHI XIDILINIAKSKY X X*LA XME XMD X X*MA XMI XMN X*MS X* X*MO X X*MTNENV XNHNJ

27NCEO

StateParent

Informed

Reference to standard devia-

tion on test

No reading and expression not through oral/written

communication

Effects post

school outcomes Other

NM X X*NY X*NC X X*

ND X X*OH X X*OK X*OR XPA X* X*RI XSC X X*SDTN XTX XUTVTVA X X*WA X*WV X X*WI XWY X*Total 26 1 2 3 17

*See notes below.AL: Other The IEP Team decision …may be based on the review of the student’s evaluation results, progress monitoring data, work samples, etc. DE Other: Student has reliable communication. If student does not- they instead participate in another type of alternate Delaware Communication Portfolio.FL Other: The student typically does not have a formal mode of communication and is working at pre-academic levels (to determine FSAA Datafolio instead of FSAA Performance Task.KY Other: The parent was provided a copy of the Alternate Assessment Parent Guide with an opportunity to ask questions.MD Other: The IEP team must annually consider the following information to determine whether the Maryland Alternate Assessments are appropriate for an individual student: Description of the student’s instruction, including data on progress, Classroom work samples and data, Examples of performance on assessment tasks to compare with classroom work, Results of district-wide assessments, Results of individualized English/language arts, Mathematics, and Science assessments, IEP information including:: Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, goals, and short-term objectives, Considerations for students with individualized and substantial communication needs or modes (from multiple data sources), Consideration for students who may be learning English as a second or other language (e.g., English Learners) that may interfere with an accurate assessment of his or her academic, social, or adaptive skills.MN Other:State defines significantly below grade expectations in glossary to explain definition in decision-making as “Significantly below the average cognitive functioning of typically developing peers; determined by:

28 NCEO

At least “two standard deviations below the mean, plus or minus one standard error of measurement” (Minn R. 3525.1333) on a standardized norm-referenced measure of cognitive functioning; OR When formal cognitive assessments are inappropriate or invalid, other data-based measures may be used to document functioning significantly below age expectations consistent with IDEA Sec 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)(bb) “

MS Standard deviation reference: The student has an IQ score or developmental level two or more standard deviations below the mean. Other: Also, with accommodations/modifications in place, the student is not able to participate in and make progress in the standard academic curriculum.MO Post School Outcomes: The student’s post-secondary outcomes for independent living will likely require supported or assisted living. The student may have a guardian when he/she turns age 18. The student would require moderate to significant supervision in order to access the community for recreation, employment, training and daily living. The student’s post-secondary outcomes for education/training will likely include on-the-job train-ing for sheltered or supported employment, as well as skill acquisition for social, communication and/or behavior. The student’s post-secondary outcomes for employment will likely result in sheltered or supported employment, part-time employment, participation in day activity centers or home. NM Other: Also, multiple evidence need to be provided to answer questions in participation criteria.NY Other: “Students with severe disabilities” refers to students who have limited cognitive abilities combined with behavioral and/or physical limitations and who require highly specialized education and/or social, psycho-logical, and medical services in order to maximize their full potential for useful and meaningful participation in society and for self- fulfillment. Students with severe disabilities may experience severe speech, language, and/or perceptual-cognitive impairments and challenging behaviors that interfere with learning and socialization op-portunities. These students may also have extremely fragile physiological conditions and may require personal care, physical/verbal supports, and assistive technology devices.NC Other: The student is enrolled in grades 3–8, 10, or 11, according to PowerSchool. AND separate criteria for alternate preACT and ACT for college and career readiness tests:CCRAA at Grades 10 and 11:

• The student must have a current Individualized Education Program (IEP).• The student does not have a current Section 504 Plan only. Students with only Section 504 Plans (i.e.,

students who do not have a current IEP that designates participation in an alternate assessment) are not eligible for participation in any of North Carolina’s alternate assessments. These students may participate in the standard test administration with or without accommodations as documented in their individual Section 504 Plans.

• The student exhibits severe and pervasive delays in all areas of conceptual, linguistic, and academic development and in adaptive behaviors, including communication, daily living skills, and self-care.

• The student is following a course of study that, upon completion of high school, may not lead to admis-sion into a college level course of study resulting in a college degree (i.e., the Occupational Course of Study).

• The student is not receiving instruction in the North Carolina Extended Content Standards. Students receiving instruction in the North Carolina Extended Content Standards may be eligible for the NCEX-TEND1 Alternate Assessments at Grades 10and 11.

The student meets the criteria above and has a written parental request for the administration of an alternate assessment (i.e., CCRAA or NCEXTEND1). Note: Decisions regarding which assessments a student with disabilities will participate in must be made annually by the IEP team. Therefore, if students’ current IEPs designate participation in an alternate assessment, they can serve as documentation of the written parental request.ND Post School Outcomes: The student’s post-secondary outcomes likely require supported or assisted living.OH Other: “6. Does the learner require individualized accommodations, access features and materials beyond those provided through Universal Tools, Designated Supports and Accommodations as outlined in Ohio’s Accessibility Manual? 7. Does the student require the use of assistive technologies to actively engage and participate meaningfully and productively in daily instructional activities in school, home, community and work environments? Note: The assistive technology box on the IEP should be a quick reference before taking a deeper look into the supports, services and testing accommodations section of the IEP. There are more than10 domains of assistive technology IEP teams should consider.OK Other: Does the IEP team feel extensive family/community support will be a lifelong requirement, regardless of modifications, accommodations or adaptations implemented in the student’s program?

29NCEO

PA Standard deviation reference: Generally, a student with a signifcant cognitive disability may be characterized as having intellectual functioning below average – cognitive measures of intelligence 2.5 to 3.0 standard deviations below the mean. Other: The student is in grade 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. AND The student’s course of study includes functional skills.SC Other: Note: Districts must administer a transition assessment listed on the South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) approved list, or one that has been approved by SCDE through the review approval process in order to meet the testing requirement for an alternate career readiness assessment. The approved assessment must be given any time during the 2018-2019 school year and must be completed by May 31, 2019. Students who are eligible to take an alternate career readiness assessment are those students who meet the criteria for participation in the state alternate assessments and are in grade 11.VA Other: 5) Is the student working toward educational goals other than those prescribed for a Modified Standard Diploma, Standard Diploma, or Advanced Studies Diploma? (Students must be enrolled in grades 3-8 or high school)

AND: A student recommended for the VAAP may exhibit some or all of the following learning characteristics: communication difficulties; uneven learning patterns in all domains; multiple disabling conditions along with an intellectual disability; motor impairments; difficulty learning new tasks and maintaining skills; and individualized methods of accessing information AND If the IEP Team determines that the student will participate in the VAAP instead of taking SOL tests with or without accommodations, a statement that addresses each of the following must be included in the IEP: why the VAAP is appropriate for the student, including how the child meets the criteria for the alternate assessment; and how the child’s participation in the VAAP will impact the child’s promotion and/or graduation.

WA Standard deviation: The student score at least two (2) standard deviations below the mean on standardized, norm-referenced assessments for adaptive behavior and intellectual functioningWV Other: Practical skills: personal activities of daily living such as eating, dressing, mobility and toileting; instrumental activities of daily living such as preparing meals, taking medication, using the telephone, managing money, using transportation and doing housekeeping activities, occupational skills; maintaining a safe environment. AND Does the learner require individualized accommodations, access features and materials beyond those provided by Universal Accommodations as outlined in most recent Guidelines for Participation in WV State Assessments? (Only consider if student is currently in an assessed grade.) WY Other: Proficiency determined by Alternate Wy-CPS does not under challenge the student or limit the educational opportunity of the student: The student’s IEP goals and objectives are based on grade-level extended standards. These are reduced in breadth, depth, and complexity and define appropriate challenge given the students level of performance, historical data, and rate of progress.

30 NCEO

31NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

D

Fact

ors

Not

to B

e U

sed

as P

artic

ipat

ion

Crit

eria

for

AA

-AA

AS

Stat

e

Soci

al, C

ultu

ral,

Ling

uist

ic o

r Env

i-ro

nmen

tal F

acto

rs

Dis

abili

ty L

abel

, Pl

acem

ent o

r Se

rvic

esEx

cess

ive

Abs

ence

sN

eed

for A

ccom

-m

odat

ions

Fore

seen

Em

o-tio

nal D

ures

sFo

rese

en D

is-

rupt

ive

Beh

avio

rA

LX

XX

XX

X

AK

X

X

X

X

X

X

AZ

XX

XX

XX

AR

XX

XX

XX

CA

XX

XX

XX

CO

XX

XX

XX

CT

XX

XX

XX

DE

XX

XX

DC

XX

XX

XX

FL GA

XX

X

HI

XX

XX

XX

ID ILX

XX

INX

XX

XX

X

IAX

XX

XX

X

KS

XX

XX

XX

KY

XX

XX

X

32 NCEO

Stat

e

Soci

al, C

ultu

ral,

Ling

uist

ic o

r Env

i-ro

nmen

tal F

acto

rs

Dis

abili

ty L

abel

, Pl

acem

ent o

r Se

rvic

esEx

cess

ive

Abs

ence

sN

eed

for A

ccom

-m

odat

ions

Fore

seen

Em

o-tio

nal D

ures

sFo

rese

en D

is-

rupt

ive

Beh

avio

rLA

XX

XX

X

ME

XX

XX

XX

MD

XX

XX

XX

MA

XX

XX

MI

XX

XX

X

MN

XX

MS

XX

X

MO

XX

X

MT

XX

X

NE

XX

XX

XX

NH

XX

XX

XX

NJ

XX

XX

XX

NM

NY

XX

X

NV

NC

XX

XX

XX

ND

XX

XX

XX

OH

XX

XX

XX

OK

XX

XX

OR

XX

XX

XX

PAX

XX

X

RI

XX

XX

X

SC

XX

X

SD

XX

XX

X

33NCEO

Stat

e

Soci

al, C

ultu

ral,

Ling

uist

ic o

r Env

i-ro

nmen

tal F

acto

rs

Dis

abili

ty L

abel

, Pl

acem

ent o

r Se

rvic

esEx

cess

ive

Abs

ence

sN

eed

for A

ccom

-m

odat

ions

Fore

seen

Em

o-tio

nal D

ures

sFo

rese

en D

is-

rupt

ive

Beh

avio

rTN

XX

XX

TXX

XX

XX

X

UT

XX

XX

XX

VT

XX

XX

XX

VA WA

X*

XX

XX

WV

XX

XX

XX

WI

XX

XX

XX

WY

XX

XX

XX

Tota

l45

4544

2935

37

*See

not

es b

elow

.W

A So

cial

, Cul

tura

l, Li

ngui

stic

Diff

eren

ce: …

soci

al, c

ultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, or e

cono

mic

diff

eren

ces

for t

he W

A-A

IM; h

owev

er c

ultu

ral a

nd li

ngui

stic

di

ffere

nces

sho

uld

not b

e us

ed a

s so

le e

xclu

sion

ary

fact

ors

for e

ligib

ility

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

NO

TE p

hras

ing

of s

ocia

l and

lin

guis

tic fa

ctor

s in

clud

e W

IDA

cons

ider

atio

n: s

ocia

l, cu

ltura

l, lin

guis

tic, o

r eco

nom

ic d

iffer

ence

s fo

r the

WA

-AIM

; how

ever

cul

tura

l and

ling

uist

ic d

iffer

-en

ces

shou

ld n

ot b

e us

ed a

s so

le e

xclu

sion

ary

fact

ors

for e

ligib

ility

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

.

34 NCEO

App

endi

x D

- co

ntin

ued

Fact

ors

Not

to B

e U

sed

as P

artic

ipat

ion

Crit

eria

for

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t

Stat

e

Poor

Per

form

ance

or

Impa

ct o

n A

ccou

ntab

ility

Sy

stem

Adm

inis

trat

or

Dec

isio

n

Oth

er D

isab

ili-

ties

(e.g

., SL

D)

Engl

ish

Lear

n-er

Sta

tus

IQ S

core

s A

lone

1%

Cap

Ref

er-

ence

Oth

erA

LX

XX

X

AK

X

XX

X*

AZ

XX

XX

AR

XX

CA

XX

XX

CO

XX

X

CT

XX

X

DE

X

DC

XX

FL GA

XX

X*

HI

XX

X

ID ILX

XX

*

INX

XX

IAX

XX

KS

XX

XX

KY

XX

XX

LAX

XX

ME

XX

35NCEO

Stat

e

Poor

Per

form

ance

or

Impa

ct o

n A

ccou

ntab

ility

Sy

stem

Adm

inis

trat

or

Dec

isio

n

Oth

er D

isab

ili-

ties

(e.g

., SL

D)

Engl

ish

Lear

n-er

Sta

tus

IQ S

core

s A

lone

1%

Cap

Ref

er-

ence

Oth

erM

DX

XX

MA

XX

XX

*

MI

XX

MN

X

MS

MO

MT

X

NE

XX

X

NH

XX

X

NJ

XX

X

NM

X*

NY

NV

NC

XX

X

ND

XX

X

OH

XX

XX

*

OK

X

OR

XX

X

PAX

XX

*X

X*

RI

XX

X

SC

XX

SD

XX

X*

TNX

X

TXX

XX

X*

36 NCEO

Stat

e

Poor

Per

form

ance

or

Impa

ct o

n A

ccou

ntab

ility

Sy

stem

Adm

inis

trat

or

Dec

isio

n

Oth

er D

isab

ili-

ties

(e.g

., SL

D)

Engl

ish

Lear

n-er

Sta

tus

IQ S

core

s A

lone

1%

Cap

Ref

er-

ence

Oth

erU

TX

XX

VT

XX

X

VA WA

XX

XX

*

WV

XX

X

WI

XX

X

WY

XX

X

Tota

l43

387

302

44

*See

not

es b

elow

.A

K O

ther

: Low

read

ing

leve

lG

A 1%

cap

: The

dec

isio

n to

adm

inis

ter G

AA

is m

ade

by th

e IE

P te

am, n

ot a

dmin

istra

tivel

y ba

sed

on fe

dera

l acc

ount

abili

ty re

quire

men

ts w

hich

lim

it th

e nu

m-

ber o

f stu

dent

s ta

king

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t who

can

be

coun

ted

as p

rofic

ient

in C

CR

PI p

erfo

rman

ce c

alcu

latio

ns. A

lthou

gh G

AA

is in

tend

ed fo

r a s

mal

l nu

mbe

r of s

tude

nts,

the

profi

cien

cy c

ap d

oes

not l

imit

the

num

ber o

f stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

spec

ial e

duca

tion

serv

ices

who

may

take

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t.IL

Oth

er: S

tude

nt h

as a

n IE

P M

A O

ther

: Stu

dent

was

not

pro

vide

d gr

ade-

leve

l sta

ndar

ds-b

ased

inst

ruct

ion,

or t

ook

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t pre

viou

sly,

or p

revi

ousl

y fa

iled

the

MC

AS

, is

a ch

ild in

fost

er c

are,

has

had

inte

rrup

ted

form

al e

duca

tion,

or i

n a

prog

ram

whe

re a

ll ot

her s

tude

nts

take

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

tsN

M 1

% c

ap: E

ligib

ility

dec

isio

ns s

houl

d be

mad

e on

an

indi

vidu

aliz

ed b

asis

acc

ordi

ng to

the

elig

ibili

ty c

riter

ia a

nd s

houl

d no

t be

base

d on

sta

tistic

s re

late

d to

th

e te

sted

pop

ulat

ion

of th

e sc

hool

or d

istri

ct. K

eep

in m

ind

that

the

1.0

Per

cent

Rul

e is

a d

istri

ct- a

nd s

tate

-leve

l rep

ortin

g ru

le a

nd s

houl

d no

t be

appl

ied

in

othe

r con

text

s. F

or in

stan

ce, t

he a

dmin

istra

tion

in a

sch

ool t

hat h

as a

pop

ulat

ion

of 2

00 s

tude

nts

in th

e gr

ades

test

ed c

anno

t adv

ise

its te

ache

rs o

r IE

P te

ams

that

they

can

det

erm

ine

that

onl

y tw

o st

uden

ts s

choo

l wid

e ar

e el

igib

le to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent.

OH

IQ: I

ntel

ligen

ce q

uotie

nt (I

Q) s

core

s ar

e no

t a re

liabl

e m

easu

re to

det

erm

inin

g el

igib

ility

as

man

y of

the

asse

ssm

ent t

ools

use

d to

det

erm

ine

IQ a

re n

ot fu

lly

acce

ssib

le fo

r lea

rner

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t mot

or, c

omm

unic

atio

n an

d se

nsor

y co

mpl

exiti

es. E

duca

tors

sho

uld

neve

r use

IQ s

core

s in

isol

atio

n to

det

erm

ine

elig

ibil-

ity.

PA O

ther

dis

abili

ties:

Typ

ical

ly s

tude

nts

with

a p

rimar

y di

sabi

lity

cate

gory

of S

peci

fic L

earn

ing

Dis

abili

ty o

r Spe

ech

Lang

uage

Impa

irmen

t DO

NO

T m

eet t

he

defin

ition

of a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. G

ener

ally,

a s

tude

nt w

ith a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y m

ay b

e ch

arac

teriz

ed a

s ha

ving

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng

belo

w a

vera

ge –

cog

nitiv

e m

easu

res

of in

telli

genc

e 2.

5 to

3.0

sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean.

IQ: I

Q s

core

or d

isab

ility

cat

egor

y al

one

(i.e.

, All

stud

ents

w

ith a

n in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ty d

o no

t aut

omat

ical

ly q

ualif

y fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t.)

SD

ELL

sta

tus:

In o

ne d

ocum

ent (

Aug

ust 2

017)

the

“Not

to u

se” f

acto

r lis

t is

mis

sing

Soc

ial,

Cul

tura

l, La

ngua

ge o

r Env

ironm

ent f

acto

rs a

nd h

as o

nly

EL

sta-

tus.

Whe

reas

a s

econ

d do

cum

ent i

nclu

des

the

soci

al, c

ultu

ral,

lang

uage

or e

nviro

nmen

tal c

ateg

ory.

TX 1

% c

ap: T

he d

ecis

ion

to a

dmin

iste

r STA

AR

Alte

rnat

e 2

is m

ade

by th

e A

RD

com

mitt

ee b

ased

sol

ely

on th

e st

uden

t’s e

duca

tiona

l nee

d, n

ot a

dmin

istra

tivel

y ba

sed

on fe

dera

l acc

ount

abili

ty re

quire

men

ts, w

hich

lim

it th

e nu

mbe

r of s

tude

nts

asse

ssed

with

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t to

no m

ore

than

1.0

% o

f the

tota

l nu

mbe

r of s

tude

nts

in th

e S

tate

who

are

ass

esse

d in

a s

ubje

ct.

WA

Oth

er: L

ack

of a

cces

s to

qua

lity

inst

ruct

ion

in c

ore

stan

dard

s

37NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

E

For

mat

of P

artic

ipat

ion

Crit

eria

for

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t

Stat

eD

escr

iptio

n/

Text

Flow

Cha

rt/

Dec

isio

n Tr

eeC

heck

list

Oth

erN

ame

of A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent

AL

XX

Pow

erP

oint

slid

esA

laba

ma

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t (A

AA

)

AK

XA

lask

a A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent (

AK

-AA

)

AZ

XX

XM

ulti-

stat

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent(M

SA

A)

AR

XX

XM

ulti-

stat

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent(M

SA

A)

CA

XC

alifo

rnia

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts (C

AA

)

CO

XX

XD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s (D

LM)

CT

XX

XC

onne

ctic

ut A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent (

CTA

A)

DE

XX

Del

awar

e S

yste

m o

f Stu

dent

Ass

essm

ents

(D

eSS

A)

DC

XX

XM

ulti-

stat

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent(M

SA

A)

FLX

XX

Flor

ida

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t

GA

XG

eorg

ia A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent (

GA

A)

HI

X

XX

Cas

e st

udie

sH

awai

i Sta

te A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ents

(HS

A-

Alt)

IDX

ID-N

CS

C A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent

38 NCEO

Stat

eD

escr

iptio

n/

Text

Flow

Cha

rt/

Dec

isio

n Tr

eeC

heck

list

Oth

erN

ame

of A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent

ILX

XD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s A

ltern

ate

As-

sess

men

t (D

LM-A

A)

INX

XX

Indi

ana’

s A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent (

ISTA

R)

IAX

Dyn

amic

Lea

rnin

g M

aps

(DLM

)

KS

XX

Dyn

amic

Lea

rnin

g M

aps

(DLM

)

KY

XX

XA

ltern

ate

K-P

rep

LAX

XLo

uisi

ana

Edu

catio

nal A

sses

smen

t Pro

-gr

am (L

EA

P) A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent,

Leve

l 1

(LA

A1)

and

Lev

el 2

(LA

A2)

ME

XX

XM

ulti-

stat

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent(M

SA

A)

MD

XX

XM

aryl

and

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts

MA

XX

Pow

erP

oint

trai

ning

sl

ides

Mas

sach

uset

ts C

ompr

ehen

sive

Ass

essm

ent

Sys

tem

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t (M

CA

S-A

lt)

MI

X

Fact

or li

st s

heet

,on

line

train

ing

tool

s (e

.g.,

audi

o, c

ase

stud

ies)

Mic

higa

n’s

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

(M

I-Acc

ess)

MN

XX

Min

neso

ta T

est o

f Aca

dem

ic S

kills

(MTA

S)

MS

XLi

nk to

trai

ning

vid

eo

was

not

wor

king

at

time

Mis

siss

ippi

Aca

dem

ic A

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

-A

ltern

ate

(MA

AP

-A)

MO

XX

XM

isso

uri A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent

MT

XM

ontC

AS

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts

39NCEO

Stat

eD

escr

iptio

n/

Text

Flow

Cha

rt/

Dec

isio

n Tr

eeC

heck

list

Oth

erN

ame

of A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent

NE

XX

XG

uide

lines

gra

phic

Neb

rask

a S

tate

Acc

ount

abili

ty T

ests

Alte

r-na

te A

sses

smen

t (N

eSA

Alte

rnat

e)

NV

XN

evad

a A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent (

NA

A)

NH

XX

New

Ham

pshi

re’s

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t P

rogr

ams

(NH

ALP

s) -

Dyn

amic

Lea

rnin

g M

aps

(DLM

)

NJ

XD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s (D

LM)

NM

XX

New

Mex

ico

Alte

rnat

e P

erfo

rman

ce A

sses

s-m

ent

NY

XD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s (D

LM)

NC

XX

Nor

th C

arol

ina

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts

(NE

XTE

ND

1)

ND

XN

orth

Dak

ota’

s A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ents

- N

DA

A ( D

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

; DLM

)

OH

XX

XW

ebin

ar,

rubr

icA

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent f

or S

tude

nts

with

Sig

-ni

fican

t Cog

nitiv

e D

isab

ilitie

s (A

AS

CD

)

OK

XX

Pow

erP

oint

, pro

fes-

sion

al d

ev. m

odul

eO

AA

P an

d D

LM

OR

XX

XO

rego

n E

xten

ded

Ass

essm

ents

PAX

Com

pani

on

tool

Pen

nsyl

vani

a A

ltern

ate

Sys

tem

of A

sses

s-m

ent (

PAS

A)

RI

XX

DLM

SC

XX

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts

SD

XX

C

ase

stud

ies

Mul

ti-st

ate

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t(MS

AA

)

TNX

XM

ulti-

stat

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent(M

SA

A)

40 NCEO

Stat

eD

escr

iptio

n/

Text

Flow

Cha

rt/

Dec

isio

n Tr

eeC

heck

list

Oth

erN

ame

of A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent

TXX

XS

TAA

R A

ltern

ate

2

UT

XX

Dyn

amic

Lea

rnin

g M

aps

(DLM

) and

UA

A fo

r S

cien

ce

VT

XD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s (D

LM)

VAX

XX

Dec

isio

n ch

art

Virg

inia

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Pro

gram

(V

AA

P)

WA

XX

Gui

delin

es fi

gure

Was

hing

ton

Acc

ess

to In

stru

ctio

n an

d M

ea-

sure

men

t (W

A-A

IM)

WV

XX

Rub

ricD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s (D

LM)

WI

XX

XD

ynam

ic L

earn

ing

Map

s (D

LM)

WY

XX

Wyo

min

g A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent (

Wy-

ALT

)

Tota

l40

2540

13

41NCEO

Appendix F

Examples of Participation Criteria Formats

(Ohio)

[Deleted list of possible sources]

42 NCEO

43NCEO

44 NCEO

(Wisconsin)(Michigan)

23  

45NCEO

(Hawaii)

46 NCEO

(Missouri)

47NCEO

(New Jersey)

48 NCEO

(North Carolina, slightly different from criteria below HS grades)

49NCEO

(Florida)

50 NCEO

51NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

G

Sta

te A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent R

esou

rces

for

“Oth

er” F

orm

at C

ateg

ory

Stat

e“O

ther

” R

esou

rce

Link

s

AL

Pow

erP

oint

trai

ning

slid

es: h

ttps:

//ww

w.a

lsde

.edu

/sec

/ses

/Ass

essm

ent/A

AA

%20

Par

ticip

atio

n%20

Det

erm

inat

ion.

pptx

HI

Cas

e S

tudi

es: h

ttps:

//hsa

-alt.

aloh

ahsa

p.or

g/co

re/fi

lepa

rse.

php/

3344

/urlt

/HS

A_

Alt_

Par

ticip

atio

n_G

uide

lines

_Exa

mpl

es_2

018-

2019

.pd

f

MA

Pow

erP

oint

trai

ning

slid

es: h

ttp://

ww

w.d

oe.m

ass.

edu/

mca

s/al

t/ess

a/O

neP

erce

nt.p

ptx

MI

Fact

or li

st s

heet

(pag

e 2)

: http

s://w

ww

.mic

higa

n.go

v/do

cum

ents

/mde

/Sho

uld_

My_

Stu

dent

_Tak

e_th

e_A

ltern

ate_

Ass

essm

ent_

5567

05_7

.pdf

Onl

ine

inte

ract

ive

train

ing

tool

s (e

.g.,

audi

o, c

ase

stud

ies)

: http

s://m

doe.

stat

e.m

i.us/

MD

ED

ocum

ents

/Inte

ract

iveD

ecis

ion-

Mak

ing-

Tool

/inde

x.ht

ml

http

s://m

doe.

stat

e.m

i.us/

mde

docu

men

ts/A

sses

smen

tSel

ectio

nGui

delin

esTr

aini

ng/in

dex.

htm

l,

MS

Vide

o (b

egin

ning

abo

ut w

ho p

artic

ipat

es):

http

s://f

orm

s.of

fice.

com

/Pag

es/R

espo

nseP

age.

aspx

?id=

RLM

1fgZ

xi0m

ZgA

UQ

oTK

3d-

tDyS

oz-J

ZBug

q6zX

4gik

ZUN

zcyV

kVH

U0F

CN

EtL

TTV

US

lU3M

UZM

SFF

VTi

4u

NE

Gui

delin

es G

raph

ic: h

ttps:

//ww

w.e

duca

tion.

ne.g

ov/w

p-co

nten

t/upl

oads

/201

7/08

/IEP

Team

_Dec

isio

n_M

akin

g_G

uide

lines

_for

_Sta

te-

wid

e_A

sses

smen

ts.p

df

OH

Web

inar

: http

://ed

ucat

ion.

ohio

.gov

/get

atta

chm

ent/T

opic

s/Te

stin

g/O

hio-

Eng

lish-

Lang

uage

-Pro

ficie

ncy-

Ass

essm

ent-O

ELP

A/O

hios

-Al-

tern

ate-

Ass

essm

ent-f

or-S

tude

nts-

with

-Sig

n/A

AS

CD

-Par

ticip

atio

n-W

ebin

ar-S

crip

ted-

Not

es.p

df.a

spx?

lang

=en-

US

Com

pani

on R

ubric

: http

://ed

ucat

ion.

ohio

.gov

/get

atta

chm

ent/T

opic

s/Te

stin

g/O

hio-

Eng

lish-

Lang

uage

-Pro

ficie

ncy-

Ass

ess-

men

t-OE

LPA

/Ohi

os-A

ltern

ate-

Ass

essm

ent-f

or-S

tude

nts-

with

-Sig

n/C

ompa

nion

-Doc

umen

t-to-

Par

ticip

atio

n-G

uide

lines

-201

9.pd

f.as

px?l

ang=

en-U

S

52 NCEO

Stat

e“O

ther

” R

esou

rce

Link

s

OK

Pow

erP

oint

s:ht

tps:

//sde

.ok.

gov/

sde/

site

s/ok

.gov

.sde

/file

s/A

ltern

ate%

20A

sses

smen

ts.p

ptP

rofe

ssio

nal D

evel

opm

ent M

odul

e:ht

tps:

//sde

.ok.

gov/

site

s/ok

.gov

.sde

/file

s/A

ltern

ate%

20A

sses

smen

ts%

20P

D%

20M

odul

e.pd

f

PAC

ompa

nion

tool

: http

s://w

ww

.pat

tan.

net/p

ublic

atio

ns/p

asa-

elig

ibili

ty-c

riter

ia-d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing-

com

pani

o

SD

Cas

e st

udie

s (A

ppen

dix

A):

http

s://d

oe.s

d.go

v/as

sess

men

t/doc

umen

ts/A

lt-G

uide

lines

.pdf

VAD

ecis

ion

char

t (A

ppen

dix

C):

http

://w

ww

.doe

.virg

inia

.gov

/test

ing/

parti

cipa

tion/

guid

elin

es-fo

r-as

sess

men

t-par

ticip

atio

n.pd

f

WA

Gui

delin

es fi

gure

(p. 1

4): h

ttp://

ww

w.k

12.w

a.us

/Spe

cial

Ed/

Res

ourc

eLib

rary

/pub

docs

/IEP

-Tea

m-G

uide

lines

-Ass

ess.

pdf

WV

Rub

ric (p

.207

): ht

tps:

//wvd

e.us

/wp-

cont

ent/u

ploa

ds/2

018/

11/2

018-

2019

-Gui

delin

es-fo

r-P

artic

ipat

ion-

in-

Wes

t-Virg

inia

-Ass

essm

ents

.pdf

53NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

H

Defi

nitio

ns o

f Sig

nific

ant C

ogni

tive

Dis

abili

ties

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Ala

bam

aIn

Ala

bam

a, th

e de

finiti

on o

f a s

tude

nt w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is a

stu

dent

with

an

inte

llige

nce

quot

ient

(IQ

) of t

hree

sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean,

whi

ch is

an

IQ s

core

of 5

5 or

bel

ow, t

hat s

igni

fican

tly

impa

cts

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd th

at e

xist

s co

ncur

rent

ly w

ith d

efici

ts in

ada

ptiv

e fu

nctio

ning

(defi

ned

as e

ssen

tial

for s

omeo

ne to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

). A

s a

rule

, a s

tude

nt h

avin

g a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

-tiv

e di

sabi

lity

is n

ot s

olel

y de

term

ined

by

an IQ

test

sco

re, b

ut ra

ther

by

a ho

listic

und

erst

andi

ng o

f a s

tude

nt. I

EP

Team

s sh

ould

use

this

defi

nitio

n as

par

t of t

he d

eter

min

atio

n fo

r a s

tude

nt to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent

prog

ram

. As

dete

rmin

ed b

y th

e st

uden

t’s IE

P, a

stu

dent

rece

ivin

g in

stru

ctio

n on

the

alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t sta

n-da

rds,

an

exte

nsio

n of

the

grad

e-le

vel s

tate

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds, m

eets

one

par

t of t

he e

ligib

ility

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t pro

gram

.

Gui

danc

e fo

r IE

P Te

ams

on P

artic

ipat

ion

Dec

isio

ns fo

r the

Ala

bam

a A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am (p

. 4)

Sou

rce:

http

s://w

ww

.als

de.e

du/s

ec/s

es/A

sses

smen

t/Ala

bam

a%20

Alte

rnat

e%20

Ass

essm

ent%

20P

rogr

am%

20P

artic

i-pa

tion%

20D

ecis

ion%

20D

ocum

enta

tion%

20Fo

rm.p

df

Ala

ska

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties

that

sig

nific

antly

impa

ct in

telle

c-tu

al fu

nctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or. A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

s ar

e es

sent

ial t

o liv

e in

depe

nden

tly a

nd to

func

tion

safe

ly

in d

aily

life

. Whe

n ad

aptiv

e be

havi

ors

are

sign

ifica

ntly

impa

cted

it m

eans

that

the

indi

vidu

al is

unl

ikel

y to

dev

elop

the

skill

s ne

cess

ary

to li

ve in

depe

nden

tly a

nd fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

. In

othe

r wor

ds, s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s im

pact

stu

dent

s bo

th in

and

out

of t

he c

lass

room

and

acr

oss

life

dom

ains

, not

just

in a

cade

mic

dom

ains

.

Par

ticip

atio

n G

uide

lines

for A

lask

a S

tude

nts

in S

tate

Ass

essm

ents

(p. 2

0)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//edu

catio

n.al

aska

.gov

/TLS

/Ass

essm

ents

/acc

omm

odat

ions

/Par

ticip

atio

nGui

delin

es.p

df

54 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Ariz

ona

A st

uden

t with

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is o

ne w

ho h

as re

cord

s th

at in

dica

te a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties

that

sig

nific

antly

impa

ct in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or. A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

is d

efine

d as

act

ions

ess

en-

tial f

or a

n in

divi

dual

to li

ve in

depe

nden

tly a

nd to

func

tion

safe

ly in

dai

ly li

fe. H

avin

g a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

no

t det

erm

ined

by

an IQ

test

sco

re, b

ut ra

ther

a h

olis

tic u

nder

stan

ding

of a

stu

dent

.

Gui

danc

e fo

r IE

P Te

ams

on P

artic

ipat

ion

Dec

isio

ns fo

r the

Mul

ti-S

tate

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t (p.

5)

Sou

rce:

http

s://c

ms.

azed

.gov

/hom

e/G

etD

ocum

entF

ile?i

d=58

5019

d1aa

debe

050c

5743

c1

Ark

ansa

sD

efini

tion

of S

igni

fican

t Cog

nitiv

e D

isab

ility

(1) T

he te

rm “s

tude

nts

with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies”

mea

ns a

chi

ld w

ith a

dis

abili

ty o

r dis

abili

ties

that

ar

e ¬n

ot te

mpo

rary

in n

atur

e an

d th

at s

igni

fican

tly im

pact

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

. Stu

dent

s w

ith

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

are

stud

ents

who

requ

ire re

peat

ed, e

xten

sive

, dire

ct, i

ndiv

idua

lized

inst

ruct

ion

and

subs

tant

ial s

uppo

rts to

ach

ieve

mea

sura

ble

gain

s ac

ross

all

cont

ent a

reas

and

set

tings

.

(2) T

he te

rm “a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

” is

defin

ed a

s th

ose

skill

s th

at a

re e

ssen

tial f

or s

omeo

ne to

live

and

func

tion

inde

pen-

dent

ly a

nd s

afel

y in

dai

ly li

fe.

Add

ition

ally,

(i) T

he s

peci

fic c

ateg

ory

of e

ligib

ility

, as

defin

ed in

IDE

A, s

hall

not b

e th

e so

le d

eter

min

ing

fact

or o

f w

heth

er o

r not

a s

tude

nt is

a s

tude

nt w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s.

3 (ii

) Stu

dent

s w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s m

ust n

ot b

e id

entifi

ed b

ased

sol

ely

on th

e st

uden

t’s p

revi

-ou

s lo

w a

cade

mic

ach

ieve

men

t or t

he s

tude

nt’s

pre

viou

s ne

ed fo

r acc

omm

odat

ions

to p

artic

ipat

e in

gen

eral

sta

te o

r di

stric

twid

e as

sess

men

ts. H

avin

g a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

not

det

erm

ined

by

an IQ

test

sco

re, b

ut ra

ther

a

holis

tic u

nder

stan

ding

of a

stu

dent

.

Gui

danc

e fo

r IE

P Te

ams

on P

artic

ipat

ion

Dec

isio

ns fo

r the

Ark

ansa

s A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am 2

018-

2019

(p. 4

)S

ourc

e: h

ttp://

ww

w.a

rkan

sase

d.go

v/pu

blic

/use

rfile

s/Le

arni

ng_S

ervi

ces/

Stu

dent

20A

sses

smen

t/DLM

/Gui

danc

e_fo

r_IE

P_T

eam

s_on

_Alte

rnat

e_A

sses

smen

t_20

18-2

019.

pdf

55NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Cal

iforn

iaA

stud

ent w

ith a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

one

who

se s

choo

l rec

ords

indi

cate

a d

isab

ility

or m

ultip

le d

isab

ilitie

s th

at s

igni

fican

tly im

pact

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

. Ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or is

defi

ned

as a

ctio

ns e

s-se

ntia

l for

an

indi

vidu

al to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

. Hav

ing

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is n

ot d

eter

min

ed b

y an

IQ te

st s

core

; rat

her,

a ho

listic

und

erst

andi

ng o

f the

stu

dent

is re

quire

d. IE

P te

ams

shou

ld b

e ca

refu

l to

cons

ider

….

CA

A G

uida

nce

for I

EP

Team

s C

alifo

rnia

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts fo

r Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Arts

, Mat

hem

atic

s, a

nd S

cien

ce:

Par

ticip

atio

n D

ecis

ions

p.3

S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//ww

w.c

de.c

a.go

v/ta

/tg/c

a/ca

aiep

team

rev.

asp

Col

orad

o…

the

desi

gnat

ion

of “t

he m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity”

is le

ft to

the

prof

essi

onal

judg

men

t of t

he s

choo

l ps

ycho

logi

st a

nd o

ther

pro

fess

iona

ls c

ontri

butin

g to

the

body

of e

vide

nce

gath

ered

dur

ing

the

eval

uatio

n an

d co

nsid

ered

by

the

IEP

Team

. Gen

eral

ly, s

uch

stud

ents

can

be

char

acte

rized

as

havi

ng in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

wel

l be

low

ave

rage

(typ

ical

ly a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith c

ogni

tive

mea

sure

s in

dica

ting

an IQ

bel

ow 5

5, /

3.0

stan

dard

dev

iatio

ns o

r m

ore

belo

w th

e m

ean)

that

exi

sts

conc

urre

ntly

with

defi

cits

in a

dapt

ive

func

tioni

ng. T

his

refe

renc

e is

onl

y of

fere

d to

he

lp d

istin

guis

h be

twee

n st

uden

ts w

ho m

eet e

ligib

ility

crit

eria

to re

ceiv

e sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n se

rvic

es a

s a

stud

ent w

ith

an In

telle

ctua

l Dis

abili

ty a

nd s

tude

nts

with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. T

he w

ords

“typ

ical

ly a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

IQ b

elow

55”

allo

w fo

r som

e di

stric

t/sch

ool fl

exib

ility

; it i

s no

t int

ende

d to

be

an a

bsol

ute

requ

irem

ent.

For s

tude

nts

with

IQ

mea

sure

d in

the

55-7

0 ra

nge,

add

ition

al fa

ctor

s re

late

d to

the

seve

rity

and

impa

ct o

f the

dis

abili

ty m

ust b

e ta

ken

into

acc

ount

whe

n co

nsid

erin

g th

e se

lect

ion

of a

ltern

ate

acad

emic

ach

ieve

men

t sta

ndar

ds a

nd a

sses

smen

t.

Par

ticip

atio

n G

uide

lines

: Alte

rnat

e A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t Sta

ndar

ds fo

r Ins

truct

ion

and

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t (pp

. 1-

2)

Sou

rce:

http

s://w

ww

.cde

.sta

te.c

o.us

/site

s/de

faul

t/file

s/ac

com

mod

atio

nsm

anua

l_pa

rtici

patio

ngui

delin

esbo

okle

t.pdf

Con

nect

icut

Wha

t doe

s “s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s” m

ean?

A

nsw

er: S

tude

nts

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

are

a re

lativ

ely

smal

l pop

ulat

ion

who

: (1)

are

iden

tified

with

on

e or

mor

e of

the

exis

ting

cate

gorie

s of

dis

abili

ty u

nder

the

IDE

A (fo

r exa

mpl

e: in

telle

ctua

lly d

isab

led,

aut

ism

, m

ultip

le d

isab

ilitie

s, a

nd tr

aum

atic

bra

in in

jury

, whi

ch a

re th

e m

ost c

omm

on);

and

(2) h

ave

cogn

itive

impa

irmen

ts

that

may

pre

vent

them

from

atta

inin

g gr

ade-

leve

l ach

ieve

men

t sta

ndar

ds, e

ven

with

sys

tem

atic

inst

ruct

ion

and

acco

mm

odat

ions

. A

dditi

onal

ly, s

tude

nt re

cord

s in

dica

te a

per

vasi

ve d

isab

ility

or m

ultip

le d

isab

ilitie

s th

at s

igni

fican

tly im

pact

inte

llect

ual

func

tioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

defi

ned

as e

ssen

tial f

or s

omeo

ne to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in

daily

life

.

Freq

uent

ly A

sked

Que

stio

ns a

nd A

nsw

ers

abou

t the

Con

nect

icut

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Sys

tem

(p. 1

) S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//por

tal.c

t.gov

/-/m

edia

/SD

E/S

tude

nt-A

sses

smen

t/Spe

cial

-Pop

ulat

ions

/Alte

rnat

e-FA

Q.p

df?l

a=en

56 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Dis

trict

of C

o-lu

mbi

a

A st

uden

t with

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is o

ne w

ho h

as re

cord

s th

at in

dica

te a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties

that

sig

nific

antly

impa

ct in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or. A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

is d

efine

d as

act

ions

ess

entia

l fo

r an

indi

vidu

al to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

. Hav

ing

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is n

ot

dete

rmin

ed b

y an

IQ te

st s

core

, but

rath

er a

hol

istic

und

erst

andi

ng o

f a s

tude

nt.

Gui

danc

e fo

r IE

P Te

ams

on P

artic

ipat

ion

Dec

isio

ns fo

r the

DC

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t in

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Arts

and

M

athe

mat

ics

(p. 3

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//oss

e.dc

.gov

/site

s/de

faul

t/file

s/dc

/site

s/os

se/s

ervi

ce_c

onte

nt/a

ttach

men

ts/D

C%

20N

CS

C%

20P

artic

ipa-

tion%

20G

uida

nce%

20(9

.28.

15).p

df

Flor

ida

In th

e IE

P te

am’s

dis

cuss

ion

of th

e qu

estio

n, “D

oes

the

stud

ent h

ave

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies?

” all

of th

e in

for-

mat

ion

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

col

lect

ivel

y. T

he s

tude

nt’s

IQ s

core

is b

ut o

ne p

iece

of t

he d

ata

puzz

le. T

he fo

cal p

oint

for

disc

ussi

on s

houl

d be

on

the

impa

ct o

f the

stu

dent

’s c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y; to

qua

lify

as a

stu

dent

with

“sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies,

” tha

t im

pact

sho

uld

affe

ct a

ll as

pect

s of

the

stud

ent’s

aca

dem

ic, i

ndep

ende

nt fu

nctio

ning

, com

mun

ity li

ving

, le

isur

e, a

nd v

ocat

iona

l act

iviti

es

GU

IDA

NC

E D

OC

UM

EN

T: S

IGN

IFIC

AN

T C

OG

NIT

IVE

DIS

AB

ILIT

IES

(p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttp://

ww

w.fl

doe.

org/

core

/file

pars

e.ph

p/75

71/u

rlt/g

uida

nces

igni

fican

tcog

nitiv

edis

abili

tiesa

tt.pd

f

Haw

aii

Doe

s th

is s

tude

nt d

emon

stra

te s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity?

Wha

t are

the

stud

ent’s

phy

sica

l, be

havi

oral

, and

ada

ptiv

e sk

ill li

mita

tions

? S

tude

nts

who

are

pro

perly

iden

tified

for t

he H

SA

-Alt

are

expe

cted

to h

ave

seve

re li

mita

tions

in c

ogni

-tiv

e ca

paci

ty a

nd fu

nctio

ning

. Whi

le a

n IQ

sco

re is

not

an

acce

ptab

le c

riter

ion

to d

eter

min

e if

a st

uden

t sho

uld

parti

ci-

pate

in th

e H

SA

-Alt,

stu

dent

s w

ho ta

ke th

e A

lt w

ould

be

expe

cted

to s

core

sig

nific

antly

low

er th

an th

eir p

eers

with

out

disa

bilit

ies

on s

tand

ardi

zed

test

s of

kno

wle

dge

and

cogn

ition

(or w

ould

pos

sibl

y no

t eve

n ac

hiev

e a

valid

sco

re a

t all)

. S

tude

nt li

mita

tions

are

gen

eral

ly e

vide

nced

in h

ow th

e st

uden

t com

mun

icat

es a

nd re

spon

ds to

the

envi

ronm

ent.

Thes

e lim

itatio

ns a

re e

vide

nced

by

the

need

for s

igni

fican

tly a

ccom

mod

ated

rece

ptiv

e an

d ex

pres

sive

com

mun

icat

ion

syst

ems

(e.g

., su

pple

men

tatio

n w

ith p

ictu

res/

sym

bols

, ass

istiv

e te

chno

logy

dev

ices

, etc

.)

HS

A-A

lt P

artic

ipat

ion

Gui

delin

es D

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

Que

stio

ns a

nd C

ase

Stu

dy E

xam

ples

(p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//hsa

-alt.

aloh

ahsa

p.or

g/co

re/fi

lepa

rse.

php/

3344

/urlt

/HS

A_A

lt_P

artic

ipat

ion_

Gui

delin

es_E

xam

-pl

es_2

017-

2018

.pdf

57NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Illin

ois

The

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t is

inte

nded

for s

tude

nts

with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies.

The

se s

tude

nts

have

in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

wel

l bel

ow a

vera

ge (t

ypic

ally

ass

ocia

ted

with

an

IQ b

elow

55)

that

exi

sts

conc

urre

ntly

with

im

pairm

ents

or d

efici

ts in

ada

ptiv

e fu

nctio

ning

(i.e

. com

mun

icat

ions

, sel

f-car

e, h

ome

livin

g, s

ocia

l/int

erpe

rson

al s

kills

, us

e of

com

mun

ity re

sour

ces,

sel

f-dire

ctio

ns, f

unct

iona

l aca

dem

ic s

kills

, wor

k le

isur

e, h

ealth

and

saf

ety)

. The

refe

renc

e to

“typ

ical

ly a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith a

n IQ

of b

elow

55”

is to

hel

p di

stin

guis

h be

twee

n st

uden

ts w

ith c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

and

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

from

stu

dent

s w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s. T

his

mea

ns th

at m

any

stud

ents

with

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s w

ill n

ot q

ualif

y fo

r the

DLM

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t. B

y de

faul

t, th

ey m

ust t

ake

our

regu

lar s

tate

ass

essm

ent w

ith o

r with

out a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. T

he in

clus

ion

of th

e w

ords

“typ

ical

ly a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith” a

l-lo

ws

for s

ome

dist

rict/s

choo

l flex

ibili

ty. I

t is

by n

o m

eans

an

abso

lute

requ

irem

ent.

ILLI

NO

IS S

TATE

BO

AR

D O

F E

DU

CAT

ION

Dyn

amic

Lea

rnin

g M

aps

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Par

ticip

atio

n G

uida

nce

(p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//ww

w.is

be.n

et/D

ocum

ents

/IAA

_Par

tic_G

dlin

es.p

df

Indi

ana

How

do

we

know

that

a s

tude

nt h

as a

“sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y”?

Mos

t stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties,

mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties,

or a

utis

m, b

ut n

ot

all d

o. A

nd, n

ot a

ll st

uden

ts w

ith th

ese

disa

bilit

ies

are

cons

ider

ed to

hav

e a

“sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y.” S

tude

nts

dem

onst

ratin

g ac

adem

ic d

efici

ts o

r diffi

culti

es d

ue to

lear

ning

dis

abili

ties,

spe

ech-

lang

uage

impa

irmen

ts, a

nd e

mo-

tiona

l-beh

avio

ral d

isab

ilitie

s do

not

qua

lify

for p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e In

dian

a A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent.

Per

form

ing

3-4

grad

e le

vels

bel

ow p

eers

with

out d

isab

ilitie

s is

not

, by

itsel

f, ev

iden

ce o

f a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Aca

dem

ic d

efici

ts

or d

ifficu

lties

alo

ne d

o no

t ind

icat

e th

at a

stu

dent

has

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Fur

ther

, a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

will

be

far r

each

ing

and

invo

lvin

g m

ost a

cade

mic

and

stu

dent

lear

ning

acr

oss

cont

ent a

reas

and

in s

ocia

l and

co

mm

unity

set

tings

.

Stu

dent

s w

ith a

utis

m o

r int

elle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties

shou

ld b

e ca

refu

lly c

onsi

dere

d fo

r the

Indi

ana

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t, bu

t the

y sh

ould

not

aut

omat

ical

ly b

e as

sign

ed to

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t bas

ed o

n th

eir i

dent

ified

dis

abili

ty c

ateg

ory

from

thei

r IE

P. N

ot a

ll st

uden

ts w

ith a

utis

m o

r int

elle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties

have

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Man

y st

u-de

nts

elig

ible

to re

ceiv

e sp

ecia

l edu

catio

n an

d re

late

d se

rvic

es u

nder

thes

e ca

tego

rical

labe

ls a

re a

ble

to p

artic

ipat

e in

ge

nera

l ass

essm

ents

, with

acc

omm

odat

ions

.

Stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

spec

ial e

duca

tion

serv

ices

who

are

iden

tified

as

havi

ng o

rthop

edic

impa

irmen

ts, o

ther

hea

lth im

-pa

irmen

ts, o

r tra

umat

ic b

rain

inju

ries,

do

not n

eces

saril

y ha

ve a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. D

eter

min

atio

ns fo

r stu

-de

nt p

artic

ipat

ion

in s

tate

wid

e as

sess

men

ts m

ust b

e ev

iden

ce-c

ente

red

and

mad

e in

divi

dual

ly fo

r eac

h st

uden

t by

the

CC

C. S

tude

nts

dem

onst

ratin

g m

ild to

mod

erat

e co

gniti

ve d

isab

ilitie

s m

ay b

e m

ore

appr

opria

tely

pla

ced

in th

e ge

nera

l as

sess

men

t sys

tem

with

acc

omm

odat

ions

. Ant

icip

ated

or p

ast l

ow a

chie

vem

ent o

n th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent d

oes

not

mea

n th

e st

uden

t sho

uld

be ta

king

the

Indi

ana

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t.

Par

ticip

atio

n D

ecis

ion

for I

ndia

na’s

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Fre

quen

tly A

sked

Que

stio

ns (p

. 1)

Sou

rce:

http

s://w

ww

.doe

.in.g

ov/s

ites/

defa

ult/fi

les/

asse

ssm

ent/i

ndia

na-a

ltern

ate-

asse

ssm

ent-p

artic

ipat

ion-

guid

ance

-fa

q-fin

al-1

0-05

-16.

pdf

58 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Kan

sas

The

term

“sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y” is

not

a n

ew s

epar

ate

cate

gory

of d

isab

ility

. It i

s a

desi

gnat

ion

give

n to

a s

mal

l nu

mbe

r of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

for p

urpo

ses

of p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e st

atew

ide

stud

ent a

sses

smen

t pro

gram

. Thi

s su

bgro

up o

f stu

dent

s re

ferr

ed to

in th

e In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s E

duca

tion

Act

and

the

Ele

men

tary

and

Sec

onda

ry

Edu

catio

n A

ct a

s ha

ving

“sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies”

con

stitu

tes

less

than

one

per

cent

of t

he s

tude

nt p

opul

atio

n.

The

stud

ents

are

(1) w

ithin

one

or m

ore

of th

e ex

istin

g ca

tego

ries

of d

isab

ility

und

er th

e In

divi

dual

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s E

duca

tion

Act

(ID

EA

) (e.

g., i

ntel

lect

ual d

isab

ility

, aut

ism

, mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties,

trau

mat

ic b

rain

inju

ry);

and

(2) w

hose

cog

-ni

tive

impa

irmen

ts a

ffect

ada

ptiv

e fu

nctio

n an

d m

ay p

reve

nt th

em fr

om a

ttain

ing

grad

e-le

vel a

chie

vem

ent s

tand

ards

, ev

en w

ith s

yste

mat

ic in

stru

ctio

n.

Wha

t is

a S

igni

fican

t Cog

nitiv

e D

isab

ility

?S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//dyn

amic

lear

ning

map

s.or

g/si

tes/

defa

ult/fi

les/

docu

men

ts/S

tate

Bon

usIte

ms/

DLM

_Par

ticip

atio

n_G

uide

-lin

es_K

S_2

0181

115.

pdf

Ken

tuck

y1.

Ken

tuck

y de

finiti

on o

f a s

tude

nt w

ith a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y:

•M

eets

elig

ibili

ty c

riter

ion

in o

ne o

r mor

e of

the

exis

ting

cate

gorie

s of

dis

abili

ties

unde

r ID

EA

(e.g

., in

telle

ctua

l di

sabi

litie

s, a

utis

m, t

raum

atic

, mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties)

, •

Hav

e co

gniti

ve a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

func

tioni

ng p

reve

ntin

g th

em fr

om a

ttain

ing

grad

e le

vel a

chie

vem

ent

stan

dard

s, e

ven

with

pro

gram

mod

ifica

tions

, ada

ptat

ions

, and

acc

omm

odat

ions

, •

Req

uire

ext

ensi

ve in

divi

dual

ized

inst

ruct

ion

acro

ss m

ultip

le s

ettin

gs to

acc

ess

and

mak

e pr

ogre

ss in

the

Ken

tuck

y A

cade

mic

Sta

ndar

ds, a

nd to

mai

ntai

n, g

ener

aliz

e an

d de

mon

stra

te le

arni

ng,

•H

ave

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

that

is n

ot p

rimar

ily th

e re

sult

of:

•ex

cess

ive

or e

xten

ded

abse

nces

•

disa

bilit

y re

late

d to

vis

ual o

r aud

itory

dis

abili

ties,

em

otio

nal-b

ehav

iora

l dis

abili

ties,

spe

cific

lear

ning

di

sabi

litie

s, s

peec

h an

d la

ngua

ge im

pairm

ent

•na

tive

lang

uage

, soc

ial,

cultu

ral,

and

econ

omic

diff

eren

ces,

•

thos

e id

entifi

ed a

s E

nglis

h Le

arne

rs (E

L)

•pr

e-de

term

ined

poo

r per

form

ance

on

the

grad

e-le

vel a

sses

smen

t •

disp

lays

dis

rupt

ive

beha

vior

s or

exp

erie

nces

em

otio

nal d

ures

s du

ring

test

ing

•ad

min

istra

tor d

ecis

ion

•ed

ucat

iona

l env

ironm

ent o

r ins

truct

iona

l set

ting

Gui

danc

e fo

r Adm

issi

ons

and

Rel

ease

Com

mitt

ees

(AR

Cs)

on

Par

ticip

atio

n D

ecis

ions

for t

he K

entu

cky

Alte

rnat

e A

s-se

ssm

ent (

p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//edu

catio

n.ky

.gov

/spe

cial

ed/e

xcep

/inst

reso

urce

s/D

ocum

ents

/KY

_Alte

rnat

e_A

sses

smen

t_P

artic

ipat

ion_

Gui

delin

es_D

ocum

enta

tion_

Form

.pdf

59NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Mai

neA

stud

ent w

ith a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

one

who

has

doc

umen

tatio

n th

at in

dica

te a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

-ab

ilitie

s th

at s

igni

fican

tly im

pact

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

. Ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or is

defi

ned

as a

ctio

ns

esse

ntia

l for

an

indi

vidu

al to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

. Hav

ing

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

l-ity

is n

ot d

eter

min

ed b

y an

IQ te

st s

core

, but

rath

er a

hol

istic

und

erst

andi

ng o

f a s

tude

nt.

Gui

danc

e fo

r IE

P Te

ams

on P

artic

ipat

ion

Dec

isio

ns fo

r the

Mai

ne’s

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts (p

. 4)

Sour

ce: h

ttps:

//ww

w.m

aine

.gov

/doe

/site

s/m

aine

.gov

.doe

/file

s/in

line-

files

/Mai

ne%

20P

artic

ipat

ion%

20G

uida

nce_

Rev

%20

12-2

8-18

_0.p

df

Mar

ylan

dM

aryl

and

does

not

defi

ne “s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity”

in te

rms

of a

“cut

off”

IQ s

core

. Mos

t stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t co

gniti

ve d

isab

ilitie

s ha

ve in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties,

mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties,

or a

utis

m, b

ut n

ot a

ll do

. Fur

ther

mor

e, n

ot a

ll st

uden

ts w

ith th

ese

disa

bilit

ies

are

cons

ider

ed to

hav

e a

“sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y.” M

any

stud

ents

elig

ible

to

rece

ive

spec

ial e

duca

tion

and

rela

ted

serv

ices

und

er th

ese

cate

goric

al la

bels

may

be

able

to p

artic

ipat

e in

gen

eral

as

sess

men

ts, w

ith o

r with

out a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. A

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

per

vasi

ve, a

ffect

ing

stud

ent l

earn

ing

acro

ss a

ll co

nten

t are

as a

nd in

soc

ial a

nd c

omm

unity

set

tings

. Stu

dent

s de

mon

stra

ting

acad

emic

defi

cits

or d

ifficu

lties

so

lely

due

to s

peci

fic le

arni

ng d

isab

ilitie

s, s

peec

h-la

ngua

ge im

pairm

ents

, oth

er h

ealth

impa

irmen

ts a

nd e

mot

iona

l-be

havi

oral

dis

abili

ties

do n

ot q

ualif

y fo

r par

ticip

atio

n in

the

Mar

ylan

d A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ents

. Stu

dent

s, h

owev

er, m

ay

be fr

om a

ny o

f the

dis

abili

ty c

ateg

orie

s lis

ted

in th

e ID

EA

. 34

CFR

200

.1(f)

(2).

Per

form

ing

thre

e to

four

gra

de le

vels

be

low

pee

rs w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

is n

ot, b

y its

elf,

evid

ence

of a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. A

cade

mic

defi

cits

or

diffi

culti

es a

lone

do

not i

ndic

ate

that

a s

tude

nt h

as a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y.

Mar

ylan

d G

uida

nce

for I

ndiv

idua

lized

Edu

catio

n P

rogr

am (I

EP

) Tea

ms

on P

artic

ipat

ion

Dec

isio

ns fo

r the

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts (p

. 5)

Sour

ce: h

ttp://

mar

ylan

dpub

licsc

hool

s.or

g/pr

ogra

ms/

Doc

umen

ts/S

peci

al-E

d/TA

B/Al

tern

ateA

sses

smen

tPar

ticip

atio

nGui

de.p

df

60 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Mis

sour

iW

hile

ther

e is

no

one

met

hod

of d

eter

min

ing

if a

stud

ent d

emon

stra

tes

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y, it

is

clea

r tha

t thi

s de

cisi

on m

ust b

e m

ade

by c

ompa

ring

the

stud

ent t

o th

e en

tire

popu

latio

n of

oth

er s

tude

nts

of th

e sa

me

age

– no

t jus

t oth

er s

tude

nts

with

in th

e di

stric

t or s

choo

l bui

ldin

g. T

he m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

rang

e ca

n be

evi

denc

ed b

y st

anda

rdiz

ed a

sses

smen

ts o

r per

vasi

ve s

uppo

rts. I

n ad

ditio

n to

dem

onst

ratin

g th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t co

gniti

ve d

isab

ilitie

s, th

e st

uden

t mus

t als

o de

mon

stra

te a

dapt

ive

skill

s th

at a

re s

igni

fican

tly li

mite

d as

com

pare

d to

sa

me

age

peer

s.

Whi

le ID

EA

does

not

pro

vide

any

gui

danc

e on

det

erm

inin

g th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s, it

doe

s st

ate,

un-

der S

ectio

n 30

0.30

4(3)

(c)(

1) “A

sses

smen

ts a

nd o

ther

eva

luat

ion

mat

eria

ls u

sed

to a

sses

s a

child

und

er th

is p

art—

(i)

are

sele

cted

and

adm

inis

tere

d so

as

not t

o be

dis

crim

inat

ory

on a

raci

al o

r cul

tura

l bas

is; (

ii) a

re p

rovi

ded

and

adm

in-

iste

red

in th

e ch

ild’s

nat

ive

lang

uage

or o

ther

mod

e of

com

mun

icat

ion

and

in th

e fo

rm m

ost l

ikel

y to

yie

ld a

ccur

ate

in-

form

atio

n on

wha

t the

chi

ld k

now

s an

d ca

n do

aca

dem

ical

ly, d

evel

opm

enta

lly, a

nd fu

nctio

nally

, unl

ess

it is

cle

arly

not

fe

asib

le to

so

prov

ide

or a

dmin

iste

r; (ii

i) ar

e us

ed fo

r the

pur

pose

s fo

r whi

ch th

e as

sess

men

ts o

r mea

sure

s ar

e va

lid

and

relia

ble;

(iv)

are

adm

inis

tere

d by

trai

ned

and

know

ledg

eabl

e pe

rson

nel;

and

(v) a

re a

dmin

iste

red

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith a

ny in

stru

ctio

ns p

rovi

ded

by th

e pr

oduc

er o

f the

ass

essm

ents

.”

Inte

llige

nce

test

s in

clud

ing,

but

not

lim

ited

to, t

he W

echs

ler S

cale

s, th

e Le

iter I

nter

natio

nal P

erfo

rman

ce S

cale

, and

th

e S

tanf

ord-

Bin

et In

telli

genc

e S

cale

s al

l yie

ld s

tand

ard

scor

es a

nd p

rovi

de a

sys

tem

of c

lass

ifica

tion

to a

ssis

t tra

ined

pe

rson

nel i

n de

term

inin

g a

leve

l of c

ogni

tive

func

tioni

ng.

The

follo

win

g ra

nges

, bas

ed o

n st

anda

rd s

core

s of

sta

ndar

dize

d in

telli

genc

e te

sts,

refle

ct th

e ca

tego

ries

of th

e A

mer

ican

Ass

ocia

tion

on In

telle

ctua

l and

Dev

elop

men

tal D

isab

ilitie

s, th

e D

iagn

ostic

and

Sta

tistic

al M

anua

l of M

enta

l D

isor

ders

and

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Cla

ssifi

catio

n of

Dis

ease

s.

Thes

e ra

nges

incl

ude

four

(4) l

evel

s of

sup

port:

§

IQ 5

0 55

to 7

0; c

hild

ren

requ

ire m

ild s

uppo

rt; §

IQ 3

5 40

to 5

0 55

; chi

ldre

n re

quire

mod

erat

e su

perv

isio

n an

d as

-si

stan

ce; §

IQ 2

0 25

to 3

5 40

; can

be

taug

ht b

asic

life

ski

lls a

nd s

impl

e ta

sks

with

sup

ervi

sion

; § IQ

bel

ow 2

0 25

; us

ually

cau

sed

by a

neu

rolo

gica

l con

ditio

n; re

quire

con

stan

t car

e.

Whi

le a

n IQ

sco

re is

not

the

sole

crit

erio

n to

det

erm

ine

if a

stud

ent s

houl

d pa

rtici

pate

in th

e M

isso

uri A

ltern

ate

As-

sess

men

t, it

wou

ld b

e ex

pect

ed th

at s

tude

nts

taki

ng th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent w

ould

sco

re s

igni

fican

tly lo

wer

than

th

eir p

eers

with

or w

ithou

t dis

abili

ties

on s

tand

ardi

zed

test

s of

kno

wle

dge

and

cogn

ition

, or t

hat t

hese

stu

dent

s m

ay

not a

chie

ve a

val

id s

core

on

the

stan

dard

ized

test

. IE

P te

ams

will

nee

d to

refe

r to

the

stan

dard

ized

test

man

ual f

or

guid

ance

on

wha

t wou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y fo

r tha

t par

ticul

ar te

st.

61NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Mis

sour

i (c

ontin

ued)

If a

stan

dard

ized

cog

nitiv

e as

sess

men

t ins

trum

ent c

anno

t be

utili

zed

with

the

stud

ent,

info

rmat

ion

mus

t be

prov

ided

to

sho

w th

e pe

rvas

ive

leve

l of s

uppo

rt re

quire

d by

the

stud

ent.

This

info

rmat

ion

mus

t com

e fro

m m

ultip

le s

ourc

es o

f in

form

atio

n (n

ot ju

st a

n ad

aptiv

e be

havi

or a

sses

smen

t) an

d in

clud

e bo

th s

kills

the

stud

ent i

s ca

pabl

e of

per

form

ing

as

wel

l as

thos

e ar

eas

in w

hich

he/

she

has

diffi

culty

. A c

ompr

ehen

sive

revi

ew w

ould

be

expe

cted

to in

clud

e ea

ch o

f the

fo

llow

ing

area

s: c

omm

unic

atio

n; s

elf-c

are;

dai

ly li

ving

; soc

ial s

kills

; acc

ess

to c

omm

unity

; sel

f-dire

ctio

n; h

ealth

and

sa

fety

; fun

ctio

nal a

cade

mic

s; le

isur

e; a

nd w

ork.

In

add

ition

to th

e ab

ove,

ada

ptiv

e sk

ills

as m

easu

red

by te

sts

of a

dapt

ive

func

tioni

ng M

US

T be

com

men

sura

te

with

the

scor

es fr

om th

e co

gniti

ve e

valu

atio

n an

d m

ust a

lso

indi

cate

that

the

stud

ent i

s fu

nctio

ning

in th

e m

ost

sign

ifica

nt c

lass

ifica

tion

rang

es.

Mis

sour

i Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Dec

isio

n M

akin

g G

uida

nce

Doc

umen

t (pp

. 1-2

) S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//des

e.m

o.go

v/si

tes/

defa

ult/fi

les/

Gui

danc

e%20

Doc

umen

t%20

FIN

AL.

pdf

Neb

rask

aTh

e te

rm “s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity”

is n

ot a

sep

arat

e ca

tego

ry o

f dis

abili

ty. I

t is

a de

sign

atio

n gi

ven

to a

sm

all n

umbe

r of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

for p

urpo

ses

of th

eir p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e st

atew

ide

stud

ent a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent p

rogr

am w

ho a

re (1

) with

in o

ne o

r mor

e of

the

exis

ting

cate

gorie

s of

dis

abili

ty u

nder

the

IDE

A an

d (2

) who

se c

ogni

tive

impa

irmen

ts m

ay p

reve

nt th

em fr

om a

ttain

ing

grad

e-le

vel a

chie

vem

ent s

tand

ards

, eve

n w

ith s

yste

mat

ic in

stru

ctio

n. F

or a

stu

dent

to b

e de

term

ined

as

havi

ng a

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y fo

r th

e pu

rpos

e of

par

ticip

atio

n in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t sys

tem

, the

IEP

team

mus

t con

side

r all

of th

e fo

llow

-in

g gu

idel

ines

whe

n de

term

inin

g th

e ap

prop

riate

ness

of a

cur

ricul

um b

ased

on

Neb

rask

a C

olle

ge a

nd C

aree

r R

eady

Aca

dem

ic S

tand

ards

with

Ext

ende

d In

dica

tors

and

the

use

of th

e N

ebra

ska

Stu

dent

-Cen

tere

d A

sses

s-m

ent S

yste

m -A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent.

(NS

CA

S –

AA

)·Th

e st

uden

t req

uire

s ex

tens

ive,

per

vasi

ve, a

nd fr

eque

nt s

uppo

rts in

ord

er to

acq

uire

, mai

ntai

n, a

nd d

emon

stra

te

perfo

rman

ce o

f kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s.

□ Th

e st

uden

t’s c

ogni

tive

func

tioni

ng is

sig

nific

antly

bel

ow a

ge e

xpec

tatio

ns a

nd h

as a

n im

pact

on

his/

her

abili

ty to

func

tion

in m

ultip

le e

nviro

nmen

ts (s

choo

l, ho

me

and

com

mun

ity).

□ Th

e st

uden

t’s d

emon

stra

ted

cogn

itive

abi

lity

and

adap

tive

func

tioni

ng p

reve

nt c

ompl

etio

n of

the

gene

ral a

cade

mic

cur

ricul

um, e

ven

with

app

ropr

iate

ly d

esig

ned

and

impl

emen

ted

mod

ifica

tions

and

ac

com

mod

atio

ns. (

*Ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or is

defi

ned

as e

ssen

tial f

or s

omeo

ne to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to

func

tion

safe

ly in

dai

ly li

fe.)

□ Th

e st

uden

t’s c

urric

ulum

and

inst

ruct

ion

is a

ligne

d to

the

Neb

rask

a C

olle

ge a

nd C

aree

r Rea

dy A

cade

mic

S

tand

ards

with

Ext

ende

d In

dica

tors

.

□ Th

e st

uden

t may

hav

e ac

com

pany

ing

com

mun

icat

ion,

mot

or, s

enso

ry, o

r oth

er im

pairm

ents

.

Mos

t Sig

nific

ant C

ogni

tive

Dis

abili

ty D

efini

tion

(p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//cdn

.edu

catio

n.ne

.gov

/wp-

cont

ent/u

ploa

ds/2

018/

03/M

ost-S

igni

fican

t-Cog

nitiv

e-D

isab

ility

-Defi

nitio

n.pd

f

62 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

New

H

amps

hire

In o

rder

to d

efine

a s

tude

nt a

s ha

ving

a m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity,

the

IEP

team

mus

t rev

iew

stu

dent

reco

rds

and

agre

e:•

The

stud

ent i

s ty

pica

lly c

hara

cter

ized

as

func

tioni

ng a

t lea

st tw

o an

d a

half

to th

ree

stan

dard

dev

iatio

ns

belo

w th

e m

ean

in b

oth

adap

tive

beha

vior

and

cog

nitiv

e fu

nctio

ning

; and

•Th

e st

uden

t per

form

s su

bsta

ntia

lly b

elow

gra

de le

vel e

xpec

tatio

ns (t

his

does

NO

T in

clud

e st

uden

ts w

orki

ng

1-2

grad

e le

vels

bel

ow th

eir d

esig

nate

d gr

ade)

on

the

acad

emic

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds fo

r the

gra

de in

whi

ch

they

are

enr

olle

d, e

ven

with

the

use

of a

dapt

atio

ns a

nd a

ccom

mod

atio

ns; a

nd

•Th

ere

is d

ocum

ente

d ev

iden

ce th

at th

e st

uden

t req

uire

s ex

tens

ive,

dire

ct in

divi

dual

ized

inst

ruct

ion

and

subs

tant

ial s

uppo

rts to

ach

ieve

mea

sura

ble

gain

s, a

cros

s al

l con

tent

are

as a

nd s

ettin

gs.

2nd D

efini

tion

prov

ided

in D

LM a

dmin

istra

tive

man

ual i

s sl

ight

ly d

iffer

ent (

no m

entio

n of

IQ a

nd in

clud

es re

fere

nce

to

not b

eing

abl

e to

take

gen

eral

ass

essm

ents

, and

nee

ding

redu

ced

dept

h/br

eadt

h of

sta

ndar

ds.

As

defin

ed b

y th

e U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

tion,

stu

dent

s w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve o

ne o

r m

ore

disa

bilit

ies

that

esp

ecia

lly a

ffect

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

s. W

hen

adap

tive

beha

vior

s ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly a

ffect

ed, t

he in

divi

dual

is u

nlik

ely

to d

evel

op th

e sk

ills

need

ed to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in

dai

ly li

fe. T

he D

LM a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s de

sign

ed fo

r stu

dent

s fo

r who

m g

ener

al e

duca

tion

asse

ssm

ents

are

not

ap

prop

riate

, eve

n w

ith a

cces

sibi

lity

supp

orts

.

Stu

dent

s ta

king

the

DLM

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t req

uire

ext

ensi

ve, d

irect

inst

ruct

ion

and

subs

tant

ial s

uppo

rts to

ach

ieve

m

easu

rabl

e ga

ins.

The

se s

tude

nts

lear

n ac

adem

ic c

onte

nt a

ligne

d to

gra

de-le

vel c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

but

at r

educ

ed

dept

h, b

read

th, a

nd c

ompl

exity

.

See

k gu

idan

ce fr

om y

our a

sses

smen

t coo

rdin

ator

abo

ut y

our s

tate

’s p

artic

ipat

ion

guid

elin

es a

nd e

ligib

ility

requ

ire-

men

ts.

S20

18-2

019

DE

CIS

ION

MA

KIN

G W

OR

KS

HE

ET

Par

ticip

atio

n of

Stu

dent

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s in

Sta

tew

ide

Ass

essm

ent

(p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//ww

w.e

duca

tion.

nh.g

ov/in

stru

ctio

n/as

sess

men

t/alt_

asse

ss/d

ocum

ents

/dec

isio

n_m

akin

g_w

ork-

shee

t_20

18-2

019.

docx

or h

ttps:

//dyn

amic

lear

ning

map

s.or

g/si

tes/

defa

ult/fi

les/

docu

men

ts/M

anua

ls_B

luep

rints

/Tes

t_A

d-m

inis

tratio

n_M

anua

l_Y

E.p

df

63NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

New

Jer

sey

As

defin

ed b

y th

e U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

tion,

stu

dent

s w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve o

ne o

r m

ore

disa

bilit

ies

that

esp

ecia

lly a

ffect

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

s. W

hen

adap

tive

beha

vior

s ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly a

ffect

ed, t

he in

divi

dual

is u

nlik

ely

to d

evel

op th

e sk

ills

need

ed to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in

dai

ly li

fe. T

he D

LM a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s de

sign

ed fo

r stu

dent

s fo

r who

m g

ener

al e

duca

tion

asse

ssm

ents

are

not

ap

prop

riate

, eve

n w

ith a

cces

sibi

lity

supp

orts

.

Stu

dent

s ta

king

the

DLM

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t req

uire

ext

ensi

ve, d

irect

inst

ruct

ion

and

subs

tant

ial s

uppo

rts to

ach

ieve

m

easu

rabl

e ga

ins.

The

se s

tude

nts

lear

n ac

adem

ic c

onte

nt a

ligne

d to

gra

de-le

vel c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

but

at r

educ

ed

dept

h, b

read

th, a

nd c

ompl

exity

.

DLM

Tes

t Adm

inis

tratio

n M

anua

l 201

8-20

19

Sou

rce:

http

s://d

ynam

icle

arni

ngm

aps.

org/

site

s/de

faul

t/file

s/do

cum

ents

/Man

uals

_Blu

eprin

ts/T

est_

Adm

inis

tratio

n_M

an-

ual_

YE

.pdf

New

Yor

k“S

tude

nts

with

sev

ere

disa

bilit

ies”

refe

rs to

stu

dent

s w

ho h

ave

limite

d co

gniti

ve a

bilit

ies

com

bine

d w

ith b

ehav

iora

l and

/or

phy

sica

l lim

itatio

ns a

nd w

ho re

quire

hig

hly

spec

ializ

ed e

duca

tion

and/

or s

ocia

l, ps

ycho

logi

cal,

and

med

ical

ser

-vi

ces

in o

rder

to m

axim

ize

thei

r ful

l pot

entia

l for

use

ful a

nd m

eani

ngfu

l par

ticip

atio

n in

soc

iety

and

for s

elf-

fulfi

llmen

t. S

tude

nts

with

sev

ere

disa

bilit

ies

may

exp

erie

nce

seve

re s

peec

h, la

ngua

ge, a

nd/o

r per

cept

ual-c

ogni

tive

impa

irmen

ts

and

chal

leng

ing

beha

vior

s th

at in

terfe

re w

ith le

arni

ng a

nd s

ocia

lizat

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties.

The

se s

tude

nts

may

als

o ha

ve

extre

mel

y fra

gile

phy

siol

ogic

al c

ondi

tions

and

may

requ

ire p

erso

nal c

are,

phy

sica

l/ver

bal s

uppo

rts, a

nd a

ssis

tive

tech

-no

logy

dev

ices

.

Elig

ibili

ty a

nd P

artic

ipat

ion

Crit

eria

– N

YS

AA

(p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttp://

ww

w.p

12.n

ysed

.gov

/ass

essm

ent/n

ysaa

/201

7-18

/nys

aa-e

ligib

ility

b.pd

f N

ote:

a s

econ

d de

finiti

on is

incl

uded

in th

e D

LM te

st a

dmin

istra

tion

man

ual t

hat i

s di

ffere

nt in

det

ail f

rom

the

one

abov

e. h

ttps:

//dyn

amic

lear

ning

map

s.or

g/si

tes/

defa

ult/fi

les/

docu

men

ts/M

anua

ls_B

luep

rints

/Tes

t_A

dmin

istra

tion_

Man

u-al

_NY.

pdf

64 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Use

d in

repo

rt as

foun

d in

mat

eria

l:Th

e st

uden

t has

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

•

The

stud

ent’s

dis

abili

ty s

igni

fican

tly im

pact

s ad

aptiv

e be

havi

ors,

defi

ned

as th

ose

skill

s w

hich

are

ess

entia

l for

so

meo

ne to

live

and

func

tion

inde

pend

ently

. •

The

stud

ent r

equi

res

exte

nsiv

e an

d re

peat

ed in

divi

dual

ized

inst

ruct

ion

and

supp

ort t

o m

ake

mea

ning

ful g

ains

. •

The

stud

ent u

ses

subs

tant

ially

ada

pted

mat

eria

ls a

nd in

divi

dual

ized

met

hods

of a

cces

sing

info

rmat

ion

in

alte

rnat

ive

way

s.

NC

EX

TEN

D1

Elig

ibili

ty C

riter

ia (p

. 1)

Sou

rce:

http

://w

ww

.ncp

ublic

scho

ols.

org/

docs

/acc

ount

abili

ty/te

stin

g/al

tern

ate/

x1ci

teria

18.p

df

New

defi

nitio

n se

nt d

urin

g ve

rifica

tion

not f

ound

in p

ublic

mat

eria

ls:

Nor

th C

arol

ina

defin

es “s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s” a

s fo

llow

s: S

tude

nts

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

have

co

gniti

ve a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

func

tioni

ng d

efici

ts th

at m

ay p

reve

nt th

em fr

om a

ttain

ing

grad

e le

vel a

chie

vem

ent

stan

dard

s, e

ven

with

sub

stan

tial p

rogr

am m

odifi

catio

ns a

nd a

ccom

mod

atio

ns. T

hey

may

requ

ire e

xten

sive

indi

vidu

-al

ized

inst

ruct

ion

acro

ss m

ultip

le s

ettin

gs to

acc

ess

and

mak

e pr

ogre

ss in

the

lear

ning

env

ironm

ent.

The

sign

ifica

nt

cogn

itive

dis

abili

ties

cann

ot b

e th

e pr

imar

y re

sults

of:

exce

ssiv

e or

ext

ende

d ab

senc

es, s

ocia

l, cu

ltura

l, an

d ec

onom

ic

diffe

renc

es, i

dent

ifica

tion

as a

n E

nglis

h Le

arne

r (E

L), p

re-d

eter

min

ed p

oor p

erfo

rman

ce o

n gr

ade

leve

l ass

essm

ents

, ad

min

istra

tor d

ecis

ion

or e

duca

tiona

l env

ironm

ent o

r ins

truct

ion

setti

ng.

65NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Ohi

oW

e w

ould

like

to ta

ke th

e op

portu

nity

of t

his

web

inar

to m

ake

som

e co

mm

ents

abo

ut d

eter

min

ing

elig

ibili

ty fo

r par

tici-

patio

n in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t. O

ccas

iona

lly w

e he

ar p

eopl

e sa

y th

at a

ccor

ding

to th

e op

erat

ing

stan

dard

s fo

r the

ed

ucat

ion

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties,

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

refe

rs to

an

inte

llige

nce

quot

ient

of s

even

ty o

r be

low

. Thi

s is

not

true

. Edu

cato

rs s

houl

d ne

ver u

se IQ

sco

res

in is

olat

ion

to d

eter

min

e el

igib

ility

.Th

e te

rm S

igni

fican

t Cog

nitiv

e D

isab

ility

that

is u

sed

in th

e pa

rtici

patio

n gu

idel

ines

doe

s no

t ref

er to

a d

isab

ility

cat

ego-

ry u

nder

IDE

A an

d w

as n

ever

mea

nt to

. The

term

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y w

as in

trodu

ced

whe

n al

tern

ate

asse

ss-

men

t bec

ame

requ

ired

unde

r NC

LB. A

t the

tim

e N

CLB

was

rele

ased

, the

term

men

tal r

etar

datio

n” w

as th

e di

sabi

lity

cate

gory

whi

ch la

ter c

ame

to b

e ca

lled

“cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity”

, whi

ch is

wha

t we

curr

ently

refe

r to

toda

y as

“int

elle

ctua

l di

sabi

lity”

. Bec

ause

of t

his

over

lap

in te

rms,

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y in

the

parti

cipa

tion

guid

elin

es a

nd c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y as

it h

as b

een

used

in O

hio,

are

ofte

n th

ough

t to

be th

e sa

me,

but

they

are

not

. Sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

a b

road

term

that

cou

ld e

ncom

pass

mul

tiple

IDE

A di

sabi

lity

cate

gorie

s in

clud

ing

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ility

. A

s pr

esen

ted

in th

e pa

rtici

patio

n cr

iteria

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent,

a st

uden

t has

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

if th

eir r

ecor

ds in

dica

te a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties

that

sig

nific

antly

impa

cts

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

. Thi

s is

not

to s

ay th

at IQ

sco

re c

anno

t be

a co

nsid

erat

ion

and

one

piec

e of

evi

denc

e w

hen

dete

rmin

ing

elig

i-bi

lity,

but

it s

houl

d ne

ver b

e us

ed in

isol

atio

n. A

nd n

o sp

ecifi

c IQ

cut

sco

re s

houl

d be

infe

rred

as

defin

ing

elig

ibili

ty. T

o as

sist

team

s in

und

erst

andi

ng th

e cr

iteria

in th

e pa

rtici

patio

n gu

idel

ines

, the

dep

artm

ent d

evel

oped

a c

ompa

nion

doc

u-m

ent t

o th

e pa

rtici

patio

n gu

idel

ines

. Thi

s do

cum

ent h

elps

IEP

team

s an

alyz

e th

e pa

rtici

patio

n cr

iteria

in m

ore

deta

il.

Slid

e 13

. S

ourc

e: h

ttp://

educ

atio

n.oh

io.g

ov/g

etat

tach

men

t/Top

ics/

Test

ing/

Ohi

o-E

nglis

h-La

ngua

ge-P

rofic

ienc

y-A

sses

smen

t-O

ELP

A/O

hios

-Alte

rnat

e-A

sses

smen

t-for

-Stu

dent

s-w

ith-S

ign/

AA

SC

D-P

artic

ipat

ion-

Web

inar

-Scr

ipte

d-N

otes

.pdf

.as

px?l

ang=

en-U

S

66 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Okl

ahom

aTh

e fir

st q

uest

ion

is w

heth

er th

e st

uden

t has

sig

nific

ant i

ntel

lect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s an

d si

gnifi

cant

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or

defic

its. A

lthou

gh n

ot a

ll st

uden

ts p

artic

ipat

ing

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent w

ill b

e el

igib

le fo

r spe

cial

ser

vice

s un

der

the

cate

gory

of I

ntel

lect

ual D

isab

ility

(ID

), th

e de

finiti

on o

f ID

brin

gs s

ome

clar

ity in

term

s of

who

the

asse

ssm

ent i

s in

-te

nded

for.

Text

App

ears

: Und

er th

e ID

EA

, ID

mea

ns s

igni

fican

tly s

ub-a

vera

ge g

ener

al in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

, exi

stin

g co

ncur

rent

ly w

ith d

efici

ts in

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or a

nd m

anife

sted

dur

ing

the

deve

lopm

enta

l per

iod,

that

adv

erse

ly a

ffect

s a

child

’s e

duca

tiona

l per

form

ance

. In

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties

are

diag

nose

d by

look

ing

at tw

o m

ain

thin

gs. T

hese

are

:Te

xt A

ppea

rs:

1) th

e ab

ility

of a

per

son’

s br

ain

to le

arn,

thin

k, s

olve

pro

blem

s, a

nd m

ake

sens

e of

the

wor

ld (c

alle

d IQ

or i

ntel

lect

ual

func

tioni

ng);

and

2) w

heth

er th

e pe

rson

has

the

skill

s he

or s

he n

eeds

to li

ve in

depe

nden

tly (c

alle

d ad

aptiv

e be

havi

or o

r ada

ptiv

e fu

nc-

tioni

ng).

Inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng e

ncom

pass

es li

mita

tions

in re

ason

ing,

lear

ning

and

pro

blem

sol

ving

. For

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t pu

rpos

es, t

here

is n

o IQ

sco

re to

defi

ne th

is te

rm. H

owev

er, t

hese

stu

dent

s ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly c

ogni

tivel

y di

sabl

ed. T

he

asse

ssm

ent i

s no

t int

ende

d fo

r stu

dent

s in

the

mild

or m

oder

ate

rang

e of

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ility

.A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

refe

rs to

the

dom

ains

and

ski

lls th

at p

eopl

e ne

ed to

func

tion

inde

pend

ently

at h

ome,

at s

choo

l, an

d in

the

com

mun

ity. A

lim

itatio

n in

ada

ptiv

e sk

ills

mus

t be

asse

ssed

to b

e su

re th

at it

is a

resu

lt of

an

adap

tive

beha

vior

ra

ther

than

the

resu

lt of

sen

sory

, hea

lth o

r phy

sica

l lim

itatio

ns. A

com

preh

ensi

ve a

dapt

ive

skill

s as

sess

men

t is

base

d on

a b

ody

of e

vide

nce

that

refle

cts

the

child

’s s

ocia

l, lin

guis

tic, a

nd c

ultu

ral b

ackg

roun

d.To

mea

sure

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or, p

rofe

ssio

nals

look

at w

hat a

chi

ld c

an d

o in

com

paris

on to

oth

er c

hild

ren

of h

is o

r her

ag

e. T

he s

kills

list

ed h

ere

are

impo

rtant

to a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

.

Pow

er P

oint

Pre

sent

atio

n, s

lide

30-3

4 S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//sde

.ok.

gov/

sde/

site

s/ok

.gov

.sde

/file

s/A

ltern

ate%

20A

sses

smen

ts.p

pt

Ore

gon

Stu

dent

s w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ar

e ty

pica

lly c

hara

cter

ized

by

sign

ifica

ntly

bel

ow a

vera

ge

gene

ral c

ogni

tive

func

tioni

ng. T

his

com

mon

ly in

clud

es a

stu

dent

with

inte

llige

nce

test

sco

res

two

or m

ore

stan

dard

de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean

on a

sta

ndar

dize

d in

divi

dual

ly a

dmin

iste

red

inte

llige

nce

test

, occ

urrin

g w

ith c

omm

ensu

rate

de

ficits

in a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

that

are

freq

uent

ly a

lso

evid

ent i

n ea

rly c

hild

hood

. Fur

ther

, the

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

mus

t si

gnifi

cant

ly im

pact

the

child

’s e

duca

tiona

l per

form

ance

and

abi

lity

to g

ener

aliz

e le

arni

ng fr

om o

ne s

ettin

g to

ano

ther

. S

tude

nts

with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

in g

ener

al, r

equi

re h

ighl

y sp

ecia

lized

edu

catio

n an

d/or

soc

ial,

psyc

holo

gica

l, an

d m

edic

al s

ervi

ces

to a

cces

s an

edu

catio

nal p

rogr

am. T

hese

stu

dent

s m

ay a

lso

rely

on

adul

ts fo

r pe

rson

al c

are

and

have

med

ical

con

ditio

ns th

at re

quire

phy

sica

l/ver

bal s

uppo

rts, a

nd a

ssis

tive

tech

nolo

gy d

evic

es.

Thes

e in

tens

ive

and

on-g

oing

sup

ports

and

ser

vice

s ar

e ty

pica

lly p

rovi

ded

dire

ctly

by

educ

ator

s an

d ar

e de

liver

ed

acro

ss a

ll ed

ucat

iona

l set

tings

.

Ore

gon

Ext

ende

d A

sses

smen

t Dec

isio

n M

akin

g G

uida

nce

(p. 1

) S

ourc

e: h

ttp://

ww

w.o

de.s

tate

.or.u

s/te

achl

earn

/test

ing/

adm

in/a

lt/ea

/ore

xtas

sess

guid

ance

.pdf

67NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Okl

ahom

aTh

e fir

st q

uest

ion

is w

heth

er th

e st

uden

t has

sig

nific

ant i

ntel

lect

ual d

isab

ilitie

s an

d si

gnifi

cant

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or

defic

its. A

lthou

gh n

ot a

ll st

uden

ts p

artic

ipat

ing

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent w

ill b

e el

igib

le fo

r spe

cial

ser

vice

s un

der

the

cate

gory

of I

ntel

lect

ual D

isab

ility

(ID

), th

e de

finiti

on o

f ID

brin

gs s

ome

clar

ity in

term

s of

who

the

asse

ssm

ent i

s in

-te

nded

for.

Text

App

ears

: Und

er th

e ID

EA

, ID

mea

ns s

igni

fican

tly s

ub-a

vera

ge g

ener

al in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

, exi

stin

g co

ncur

rent

ly w

ith d

efici

ts in

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or a

nd m

anife

sted

dur

ing

the

deve

lopm

enta

l per

iod,

that

adv

erse

ly a

ffect

s a

child

’s e

duca

tiona

l per

form

ance

. In

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ties

are

diag

nose

d by

look

ing

at tw

o m

ain

thin

gs. T

hese

are

:Te

xt A

ppea

rs:

1) th

e ab

ility

of a

per

son’

s br

ain

to le

arn,

thin

k, s

olve

pro

blem

s, a

nd m

ake

sens

e of

the

wor

ld (c

alle

d IQ

or i

ntel

lect

ual

func

tioni

ng);

and

2) w

heth

er th

e pe

rson

has

the

skill

s he

or s

he n

eeds

to li

ve in

depe

nden

tly (c

alle

d ad

aptiv

e be

havi

or o

r ada

ptiv

e fu

nc-

tioni

ng).

Inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng e

ncom

pass

es li

mita

tions

in re

ason

ing,

lear

ning

and

pro

blem

sol

ving

. For

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t pu

rpos

es, t

here

is n

o IQ

sco

re to

defi

ne th

is te

rm. H

owev

er, t

hese

stu

dent

s ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly c

ogni

tivel

y di

sabl

ed. T

he

asse

ssm

ent i

s no

t int

ende

d fo

r stu

dent

s in

the

mild

or m

oder

ate

rang

e of

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ility

.A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

refe

rs to

the

dom

ains

and

ski

lls th

at p

eopl

e ne

ed to

func

tion

inde

pend

ently

at h

ome,

at s

choo

l, an

d in

the

com

mun

ity. A

lim

itatio

n in

ada

ptiv

e sk

ills

mus

t be

asse

ssed

to b

e su

re th

at it

is a

resu

lt of

an

adap

tive

beha

vior

ra

ther

than

the

resu

lt of

sen

sory

, hea

lth o

r phy

sica

l lim

itatio

ns. A

com

preh

ensi

ve a

dapt

ive

skill

s as

sess

men

t is

base

d on

a b

ody

of e

vide

nce

that

refle

cts

the

child

’s s

ocia

l, lin

guis

tic, a

nd c

ultu

ral b

ackg

roun

d.To

mea

sure

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or, p

rofe

ssio

nals

look

at w

hat a

chi

ld c

an d

o in

com

paris

on to

oth

er c

hild

ren

of h

is o

r her

ag

e. T

he s

kills

list

ed h

ere

are

impo

rtant

to a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

.

Pow

er P

oint

Pre

sent

atio

n, s

lide

30-3

4 S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//sde

.ok.

gov/

sde/

site

s/ok

.gov

.sde

/file

s/A

ltern

ate%

20A

sses

smen

ts.p

pt

Ore

gon

Stu

dent

s w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ar

e ty

pica

lly c

hara

cter

ized

by

sign

ifica

ntly

bel

ow a

vera

ge

gene

ral c

ogni

tive

func

tioni

ng. T

his

com

mon

ly in

clud

es a

stu

dent

with

inte

llige

nce

test

sco

res

two

or m

ore

stan

dard

de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean

on a

sta

ndar

dize

d in

divi

dual

ly a

dmin

iste

red

inte

llige

nce

test

, occ

urrin

g w

ith c

omm

ensu

rate

de

ficits

in a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

that

are

freq

uent

ly a

lso

evid

ent i

n ea

rly c

hild

hood

. Fur

ther

, the

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

mus

t si

gnifi

cant

ly im

pact

the

child

’s e

duca

tiona

l per

form

ance

and

abi

lity

to g

ener

aliz

e le

arni

ng fr

om o

ne s

ettin

g to

ano

ther

. S

tude

nts

with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

in g

ener

al, r

equi

re h

ighl

y sp

ecia

lized

edu

catio

n an

d/or

soc

ial,

psyc

holo

gica

l, an

d m

edic

al s

ervi

ces

to a

cces

s an

edu

catio

nal p

rogr

am. T

hese

stu

dent

s m

ay a

lso

rely

on

adul

ts fo

r pe

rson

al c

are

and

have

med

ical

con

ditio

ns th

at re

quire

phy

sica

l/ver

bal s

uppo

rts, a

nd a

ssis

tive

tech

nolo

gy d

evic

es.

Thes

e in

tens

ive

and

on-g

oing

sup

ports

and

ser

vice

s ar

e ty

pica

lly p

rovi

ded

dire

ctly

by

educ

ator

s an

d ar

e de

liver

ed

acro

ss a

ll ed

ucat

iona

l set

tings

.

Ore

gon

Ext

ende

d A

sses

smen

t Dec

isio

n M

akin

g G

uida

nce

(p. 1

) S

ourc

e: h

ttp://

ww

w.o

de.s

tate

.or.u

s/te

achl

earn

/test

ing/

adm

in/a

lt/ea

/ore

xtas

sess

guid

ance

.pdf

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Pen

nsyl

vani

aP

enns

ylva

nia

defin

es s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s as

per

vasi

ve a

nd g

loba

l in

natu

re, a

ffect

ing

stud

ent l

earn

ing

in a

ll ac

adem

ic c

onte

nt a

reas

, as

wel

l as

adap

tive

beha

vior

s an

d fu

nctio

nal s

kills

acr

oss

life

dom

ains

. A s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is p

erva

sive

, affe

ctin

g st

uden

t fun

ctio

ning

acr

oss

all a

cade

mic

, soc

ial,

and

com

mun

ity s

ettin

gs. T

he s

tude

nt

is e

xpec

ted

to re

quire

inte

nsiv

e an

d on

goin

g su

ppor

ts a

fter g

radu

atio

n. S

tude

nts

with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

likel

y re

quire

obj

ectiv

es, m

ater

ials

, pro

mpt

ing

hier

arch

ies,

and

teac

hing

mod

aliti

es d

iffer

ent f

rom

the

gen-

eral

edu

catio

n cu

rric

ulum

. The

stu

dent

’s g

oals

and

obj

ectiv

es ty

pica

lly re

flect

the

Alte

rnat

e E

ligib

le C

onte

nt.

,,, A

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

not

dire

ctly

defi

ned

by a

Cha

pter

14

disa

bilit

y ca

tego

ry. T

ypic

ally

stu

dent

s w

ith a

pr

imar

y di

sabi

lity

cate

gory

of S

peci

fic L

earn

ing

Dis

abili

ty o

r Spe

ech

Lang

uage

Impa

irmen

t DO

NO

T m

eet t

he d

efini

tion

of a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. G

ener

ally,

a s

tude

nt w

ith a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y m

ay b

e ch

arac

teriz

ed a

s ha

ving

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng b

elow

ave

rage

– c

ogni

tive

mea

sure

s of

inte

llige

nce

2.5

to 3

.0 s

tand

ard

devi

atio

ns b

elow

th

e m

ean.

Sou

rce:

http

s://w

ww

.pat

tan.

net/p

ublic

atio

ns/p

asa-

elig

ibili

ty-c

riter

ia-d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing-

com

pani

o

Rho

de Is

land

As

defin

ed b

y th

e U

.S. D

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

tion,

stu

dent

s w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve o

ne o

r m

ore

disa

bilit

ies

that

esp

ecia

lly a

ffect

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

s. W

hen

adap

tive

beha

vior

s ar

e si

gnifi

cant

ly a

ffect

ed, t

he in

divi

dual

is u

nlik

ely

to d

evel

op th

e sk

ills

need

ed to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

to fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in

dai

ly li

fe. T

he D

LM a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s de

sign

ed fo

r stu

dent

s fo

r who

m g

ener

al e

duca

tion

asse

ssm

ents

are

not

ap

prop

riate

, eve

n w

ith a

cces

sibi

lity

supp

orts

.

Stu

dent

s ta

king

the

DLM

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t req

uire

ext

ensi

ve, d

irect

inst

ruct

ion

and

subs

tant

ial s

uppo

rts to

ach

ieve

m

easu

rabl

e ga

ins.

The

se s

tude

nts

lear

n ac

adem

ic c

onte

nt a

ligne

d to

gra

de-le

vel c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

but

at r

educ

ed

dept

h, b

read

th, a

nd c

ompl

exity

.

DLM

Tes

t Adm

inis

tratio

n M

anua

l 201

8-20

19

Sou

rce:

http

://w

ww

.ride

.ri.g

ov/P

orta

ls/0

/Upl

oads

/Doc

umen

ts/In

stru

ctio

n-an

d-A

sses

smen

t-Wor

ld-C

lass

-Sta

ndar

ds/A

s-se

ssm

ent/D

LM_T

est_

Adm

inis

tratio

n_M

anua

l_20

18-1

9.pd

68 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

cha

ract

eriz

ed b

y ab

ility

sco

res

on b

oth

verb

al a

nd n

onve

rbal

sca

les

that

are

at l

east

2½

–3 S

tand

ard

devi

atio

ns B

elow

the

mea

n. S

tude

nts

with

abi

lity

scor

es in

the

aver

age

rang

e ar

e N

OT

cons

ider

ed to

be

stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s.

Ada

ptiv

e sk

ills

rela

te to

inde

pend

ence

in e

very

day

livin

g sk

ills,

incl

udin

g in

terp

erso

nal a

nd s

ocia

l int

erac

tions

acr

oss

mul

tiple

set

tings

. To

be e

ligib

le to

par

ticip

ate

in a

n al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent,

Stu

dent

s sh

ould

dem

onst

rate

defi

cits

in

adap

tive

beha

vior

ski

lls w

ith s

core

s th

at a

re a

t lea

st 2

½–3

sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean

in a

t lea

st tw

o ad

aptiv

e sk

ill d

omai

ns.

A st

uden

t with

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

requ

ires

subs

tant

ial m

odifi

catio

ns, a

dapt

atio

ns, o

r sup

ports

to m

eani

ng-

fully

acc

ess

the

subj

ect a

rea

cont

ent a

nd re

quire

s in

tens

ive

indi

vidu

aliz

ed in

stru

ctio

n in

ord

er to

acq

uire

and

gen

er-

aliz

e kn

owle

dge.

The

stu

dent

’s in

stru

ctio

n sh

ould

be

base

d on

the

Prio

ritiz

ed S

tand

ards

, whi

ch p

rovi

de a

cces

s to

th

e ge

nera

l edu

catio

n cu

rric

ulum

at e

mer

ging

, rea

dine

ss (p

rere

quis

ite),

foun

datio

nal,

and

less

com

plex

ski

ll le

vels

. S

tude

nts

with

abi

litie

s be

low

gra

de le

vel s

houl

d no

t be

cons

ider

ed fo

r alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t if t

heir

abili

ty a

nd a

dapt

ive

scor

es a

re in

the

aver

age

rang

e, a

bilit

ies

that

are

bel

ow g

rade

leve

l do

not m

ean

a st

uden

t sho

uld

take

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t. S

tude

nts

Who

mee

t the

elig

ibili

ty c

riter

ia fo

r alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t may

be

clas

sifie

d in

any

of t

he d

isab

ility

cat

egor

ies

liste

d in

the

Indi

vidu

als

with

Dis

abili

ties

Edu

catio

n A

ct (I

DE

A),

As

long

as

ther

e is

doc

umen

tatio

n th

at th

e st

uden

t has

a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y or

sev

ere

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ility

and

sig

nific

ant a

dapt

ive

skill

s de

ficits

. Som

e D

isab

ility

cat

-eg

orie

s, a

s de

fined

By

the

Sta

te B

oard

of E

duca

tion

Crit

eria

for E

ntry

into

Pro

gram

s of

Spe

cial

Edu

catio

n fo

r Stu

dent

s w

ith D

isab

ilitie

s (4

3–24

3)1,

may

not

mee

t the

nec

essa

ry c

riter

ia fo

r par

ticip

atio

n in

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t.Fo

r exa

mpl

e, a

stu

dent

who

is e

valu

ated

and

det

erm

ined

to q

ualif

y fo

r spe

cial

edu

catio

n se

rvic

es a

s a

child

with

a

Spe

cific

Lea

rnin

g D

isab

ility

or E

mot

iona

l Dis

abili

ty w

ould

not

exh

ibit

an in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ty a

ccor

ding

to th

e S

tate

B

oard

of E

duca

tion

crite

ria. A

lso,

whi

le s

ome

stud

ents

det

erm

ined

elig

ible

und

er th

e ca

tego

ries

of O

ther

Hea

lth Im

-pa

ired

(OH

I), O

rthop

edic

Impa

irmen

t (O

I), a

nd A

utis

m m

ay H

ave

conc

omita

nt c

ogni

tive

impa

irmen

t, of

ten

times

they

do

not

. Suc

h S

tude

nts

wou

ld n

ot m

eet t

he n

eces

sary

crit

eria

for p

artic

ipat

ion

in a

n al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent.

Sou

rce:

http

s://s

c-al

t.por

tal.a

irast

.org

/cor

e/fil

epar

se.p

hp/3

982/

urlt/

Par

ticip

atio

n-G

uida

nce-

for-

IEP

-Tea

ms.

pdf

Sou

th D

akot

aTh

e te

rm “s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity”

is n

ot a

cat

egor

y of

dis

abili

ty. I

t is

a de

sign

atio

n gi

ven

to a

sm

all n

umbe

r of

stud

ents

with

dis

abili

ties

for p

urpo

ses

of th

eir p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e st

ate

asse

ssm

ent p

rogr

am. F

or a

stu

dent

to b

e de

term

ined

as

havi

ng a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y fo

r pur

pose

s of

par

ticip

atio

n in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts, e

ach

of th

e th

ree

crite

ria m

ust b

e tru

e as

det

erm

ined

by

the

stud

ent’s

IEP

team

The

stud

ent h

as a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. D

oes

stud

ent h

ave

a di

sabi

lity,

or d

isab

ilitie

s, th

at s

igni

fican

tly im

-pa

cts

cogn

itive

func

tion

and

adap

tive

beha

vior

? R

evie

w o

f stu

dent

reco

rds

and

othe

r evi

denc

e in

dica

te a

dis

abili

ty o

r m

ultip

le d

isab

ilitie

s th

at p

reve

nt th

e st

uden

t fro

m m

eani

ngfu

l par

ticip

atio

n in

the

stan

dard

aca

dem

ic c

ore

curr

icul

um o

r ac

hiev

emen

t of t

he s

tand

ards

at t

heir

enro

lled

grad

e le

vel.

Add

ition

ally,

the

stud

ent’s

dis

abili

ty c

ause

s de

pend

ence

on

othe

rs fo

r man

y, a

nd s

omet

imes

all,

dai

ly li

ving

nee

ds, a

nd th

e st

uden

t is

expe

cted

to re

quire

ext

ensi

ve o

ngoi

ng s

up-

port

in a

dulth

ood.

Sou

rce:

http

s://d

oe.s

d.go

v/as

sess

men

t/doc

umen

ts/A

lt-G

uide

lines

.pdf

69NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Tenn

esse

eTh

e st

uden

t’s re

cord

s in

dica

te a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties

that

mos

t sig

nific

antly

impa

ct in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

an

d ad

aptiv

e be

havi

or. A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

is d

efine

d as

ess

entia

l for

som

eone

to li

ve in

depe

nden

tly a

nd to

func

tion

safe

ly in

dai

ly li

ving

. Ite

ms

to c

onsi

der i

nclu

de: a

necd

otal

par

ent i

nput

, ind

ivid

ual c

ogni

tive

abili

ty te

sts,

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or s

kills

ass

essm

ents

, ind

ivid

ual/g

roup

adm

inis

tere

d ac

hiev

emen

t tes

ts, i

nfor

mal

ass

essm

ents

, tea

cher

co

llect

ed d

ata

and

chec

klis

ts, e

tc.

Con

side

ratio

ns fo

r Par

ticip

atio

n in

the

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Crit

erio

n 1:

Sig

nific

ant C

ogni

tive

Dis

abili

ty. T

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s an

opt

ion

for s

tude

nt w

ith th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s. In

mak

ing

deci

sion

s re

gard

ing

asse

ssm

ent e

ligib

ility

, tea

ms

mus

t det

erm

ine

if a

stud

ent d

emon

stra

tes

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Bel

ow a

re

som

e co

nsid

erat

ions

team

s m

ay a

ddre

ss to

mak

e su

re d

ecis

ions

are

bas

ed o

n a

holis

tic v

iew

of t

he s

tude

nt a

nd d

o no

t foc

us p

urel

y an

IQ s

core

as

ther

e ar

e m

any

fact

ors

that

can

impa

ct a

sses

smen

t per

form

ance

. 1. D

id th

e te

am

com

plet

e al

l the

eva

luat

ion

proc

edur

es to

hel

p de

term

ine

the

pres

ence

of a

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity?

2. I

s th

ere

reas

on

to b

elie

ve th

at th

e IQ

sco

re is

low

er th

an th

e st

uden

t’s tr

ue a

bilit

y? F

or e

xam

ple:

− C

omm

unic

atio

n or

beh

avio

rs

impa

ct te

stin

g pe

rform

ance

. − O

ther

are

as o

f fun

ctio

ning

indi

cate

hig

her a

bilit

y (e

.g.,

impr

oved

lang

uage

or a

cade

mic

ac

hiev

emen

t, a

hist

ory

of h

ighe

r abi

lity)

. 3. D

oes

the

best

est

imat

e of

the

stud

ent’s

cog

nitiv

e ab

ility

repr

esen

t a

sign

ifica

nt*

cogn

itive

dis

abili

ty?

Doe

s th

e be

st e

stim

ate

of th

e st

uden

t’s c

ogni

tive

abili

ty ta

ke in

to c

onsi

dera

tion

othe

r fa

ctor

s th

at m

ay h

ave

impa

cted

per

form

ance

on

the

cogn

itive

ass

essm

ent?

* “S

igni

fican

t” in

dica

tes

that

ther

e is

a

high

leve

l of s

ever

ity a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e co

gniti

ve d

isab

ility

. 4. W

ere

the

adap

tive

beha

vior

sco

res

cons

iste

ntly

si

gnifi

cant

ly lo

w c

ompa

red

to s

ame-

aged

pee

rs fo

r bot

h pa

rent

and

teac

her r

ater

s? If

the

adap

tive

beha

vior

sco

res

wer

e in

cons

iste

nt, d

id th

e as

sess

men

t spe

cial

ist’s

doc

umen

ted

syst

emic

obs

erva

tion

indi

cate

whi

ch s

core

s w

ere

mos

t co

nsis

tent

with

the

stud

ent’s

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or?

Tenn

esse

e D

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

tion

ES

SA

Sta

te P

lan’

s A

ppen

dix

H: A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ents

Par

ticip

atio

n D

ecis

ion

Flow

char

t (p.

355

) S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//ww

w.tn

.gov

/con

tent

/dam

/tn/e

duca

tion/

docu

men

ts/T

N_E

SS

A_S

tate

_Pla

n_A

ppro

ved.

pdf

Texa

sTe

xas

defin

ition

of a

stu

dent

with

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is a

stu

dent

who

: exh

ibits

sig

nific

ant i

ntel

lect

ual a

nd

adap

tive

beha

vior

defi

cits

in th

eir a

bilit

y to

pla

n, c

ompr

ehen

d, a

nd re

ason

, and

ALS

O in

dica

tes

adap

tive

beha

vior

de

ficits

that

lim

it th

eir a

bilit

y to

app

ly s

ocia

l and

pra

ctic

al s

kills

suc

h as

per

sona

l car

e, s

ocia

l pro

blem

-sol

ving

ski

lls,

dres

sing

, eat

ing,

usi

ng m

oney

, and

oth

er fu

nctio

nal s

kills

acr

oss

life

dom

ains

; is

NO

T id

entifi

ed b

ased

on

Eng

lish

lear

ner d

esig

natio

n or

sol

ely

on th

e ba

sis

of p

revi

ous

low

aca

dem

ic a

chie

vem

ent o

r the

nee

d fo

r acc

omm

odat

ions

; an

d re

quire

s ex

tens

ive,

dire

ct, i

ndiv

idua

lized

inst

ruct

ion,

as

wel

l as

a ne

ed fo

r sub

stan

tial s

uppo

rts th

at a

re n

eith

er

tem

pora

ry n

or s

peci

fic to

a p

artic

ular

con

tent

are

a.

Texa

s S

taar

alt p

age

(cite

d be

low

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//tea

.texa

s.go

v/st

uden

t.ass

essm

ent/s

peci

al-e

d/st

aara

lt/

70 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Uta

hTh

e te

rm s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

does

not

in it

self

deno

te a

spe

cific

IDE

A di

sabi

lity

cate

gory

or c

ateg

orie

s bu

t ra

ther

a s

et o

f edu

catio

nal c

onsi

dera

tions

bas

ed u

pon

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt n

eeds

as

dete

rmin

ed th

roug

h th

e IE

P pr

o-ce

ss. A

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

not

det

erm

ined

by

a sp

ecifi

c co

gniti

ve a

sses

smen

t sco

re, b

ut b

y a

com

preh

en-

sive

und

erst

andi

ng o

f the

who

le s

tude

nt, w

hich

indi

cate

s th

e di

sabi

lity

sign

ifica

ntly

affe

cts

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd

adap

tive

beha

vior

. S

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s re

fers

to a

sm

all n

umbe

r of s

tude

nts

who

are

with

in o

ne o

r mor

e ex

istin

g ca

tego

ries

of

disa

bilit

y un

der t

he ID

EA

(e.g

. aut

ism

, mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties,

trau

mat

ic b

rain

inju

ry, a

nd in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ty).

…

The

Uta

h S

tate

Boa

rd o

f Edu

catio

n (U

SB

E) d

efine

s a

stud

ent w

ith a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y (S

WS

CD

) as

a st

uden

t who

: •

Has

doc

umen

tatio

n th

at in

dica

tes

the

disa

bilit

y si

gnifi

cant

ly im

pact

s in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or (t

he d

efini

tion

of a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

is th

e ac

tions

ess

entia

l for

an

indi

vidu

al to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

).

o

The

stud

ent’s

cog

nitiv

e fu

nctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or d

emon

stra

ted

in th

e ho

me,

sch

ool,

and

com

mun

ity e

nviro

nmen

ts a

re s

igni

fican

tly b

elow

age

exp

ecta

tions

, eve

n w

ith p

rogr

am m

odifi

catio

ns,

adap

tatio

ns a

nd a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

•R

equi

res

inte

nsiv

e, re

peat

ed, m

odifi

ed, a

nd d

irect

indi

vidu

aliz

ed in

stru

ctio

n th

at re

quire

s su

bsta

ntia

l sup

ports

to

lear

n, m

aint

ain,

and

gen

eral

ize

skill

s in

the

grad

e-an

d-ag

e-ap

prop

riate

cur

ricul

um a

nd tr

ansf

er o

f ski

lls

acro

ss m

ultip

le s

ettin

gs.

71NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Uta

hTh

e te

rm s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

does

not

in it

self

deno

te a

spe

cific

IDE

A di

sabi

lity

cate

gory

or c

ateg

orie

s bu

t ra

ther

a s

et o

f edu

catio

nal c

onsi

dera

tions

bas

ed u

pon

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt n

eeds

as

dete

rmin

ed th

roug

h th

e IE

P pr

o-ce

ss. A

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y is

not

det

erm

ined

by

a sp

ecifi

c co

gniti

ve a

sses

smen

t sco

re, b

ut b

y a

com

preh

en-

sive

und

erst

andi

ng o

f the

who

le s

tude

nt, w

hich

indi

cate

s th

e di

sabi

lity

sign

ifica

ntly

affe

cts

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng a

nd

adap

tive

beha

vior

. S

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s re

fers

to a

sm

all n

umbe

r of s

tude

nts

who

are

with

in o

ne o

r mor

e ex

istin

g ca

tego

ries

of

disa

bilit

y un

der t

he ID

EA

(e.g

. aut

ism

, mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties,

trau

mat

ic b

rain

inju

ry, a

nd in

telle

ctua

l dis

abili

ty).

…

The

Uta

h S

tate

Boa

rd o

f Edu

catio

n (U

SB

E) d

efine

s a

stud

ent w

ith a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y (S

WS

CD

) as

a st

uden

t who

: •

Has

doc

umen

tatio

n th

at in

dica

tes

the

disa

bilit

y si

gnifi

cant

ly im

pact

s in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or (t

he d

efini

tion

of a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

is th

e ac

tions

ess

entia

l for

an

indi

vidu

al to

live

inde

pend

ently

and

fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

).

o

The

stud

ent’s

cog

nitiv

e fu

nctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or d

emon

stra

ted

in th

e ho

me,

sch

ool,

and

com

mun

ity e

nviro

nmen

ts a

re s

igni

fican

tly b

elow

age

exp

ecta

tions

, eve

n w

ith p

rogr

am m

odifi

catio

ns,

adap

tatio

ns a

nd a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

•R

equi

res

inte

nsiv

e, re

peat

ed, m

odifi

ed, a

nd d

irect

indi

vidu

aliz

ed in

stru

ctio

n th

at re

quire

s su

bsta

ntia

l sup

ports

to

lear

n, m

aint

ain,

and

gen

eral

ize

skill

s in

the

grad

e-an

d-ag

e-ap

prop

riate

cur

ricul

um a

nd tr

ansf

er o

f ski

lls

acro

ss m

ultip

le s

ettin

gs.

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Uta

h

(con

tinue

d)•

The

stud

ent’s

sev

ere

and

com

plex

dis

abili

ties

limit

the

stud

ent f

rom

mea

ning

ful p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e st

anda

rd

acad

emic

cor

e cu

rric

ulum

or a

chie

vem

ent o

f the

aca

dem

ic c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

est

ablis

hed

at g

rade

leve

l, w

ithou

t sub

stan

tial s

uppo

rt, m

odifi

catio

ns, a

dapt

atio

ns a

nd a

ccom

mod

atio

ns.

o

Req

uire

s in

stru

ctio

n th

roug

h th

e U

tah

alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds (E

ssen

tial E

lem

ents

and

E

xten

ded

Cor

e)

o

The

stud

ent’s

cou

rse

of s

tudy

incl

udes

func

tiona

l and

life

ski

lls in

stru

ctio

n an

d,

o

May

be

elig

ible

to p

artic

ipat

e in

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts (D

LM, U

AA

, KE

EP

Alte

rnat

e, D

IBE

LS A

ltern

ate,

et

c.).

•Th

e st

uden

t’s d

isab

ility

incr

ease

s th

e ne

ed fo

r dep

ende

nce

on o

ther

s fo

r man

y, if

not

all,

dai

ly li

ving

nee

ds,

and

the

stud

ent i

s ex

pect

ed to

requ

ire e

xten

sive

ong

oing

sup

port

thro

ugh

adul

thoo

d.

34 C

.F.R

. §20

0.6(

d); U

tah

Adm

in. C

ode

R27

7-70

5-2(

8)

Who

is a

stu

dent

with

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity?

(p. 1

)S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//sch

ools

.uta

h.go

v/fil

e/2a

529d

92-7

1e4-

4712

-83b

2-62

a960

8384

96

Virg

inia

Ext

ensi

ve d

ocum

ent w

ith d

escr

ipto

rs o

f Lea

rner

Cha

ract

eris

tics,

Ada

ptiv

e B

ehav

ior a

nd In

telle

ctua

l Fun

ctio

ning

. Hig

h-lig

hts

are

as fo

llow

s:

•S

tude

nts

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

prob

ably

hav

e di

fficu

lty b

oth

lear

ning

mos

t or a

ll of

thes

e sk

ills

and

usin

g or

tran

sfer

ring

the

skill

s ac

ross

diff

eren

t set

tings

and

/or

•P

erfo

rman

ce o

n st

anda

rdiz

ed a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

sca

les

that

is a

t lea

st th

ree

stan

dard

dev

iatio

ns b

elow

the

mea

n.•

Per

form

ance

on

stan

dard

ized

inte

llige

nce

test

s th

at re

pres

ent a

t lea

st th

ree

stan

dard

dev

iatio

ns fr

om th

e m

ean

IQ

scor

e. T

hese

sco

res

may

indi

cate

that

a s

tude

nt h

as s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s. G

UID

AN

CE

DO

CU

ME

NT:

VA

AP

Par

ticip

atio

n C

riter

ia a

nd th

e D

eter

min

atio

n of

Sig

nific

ant C

ogni

tive

Dis

abili

tieS

ourc

e: h

ttp://

ww

w.p

en.k

12.v

a.us

/spe

cial

_ed/

disa

bilit

ies/

inte

llect

ual_

disa

bilit

y/gu

idan

ce_s

igni

fican

t_co

gniti

ve_d

isab

ilt-

ies.

pdf

72 NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s m

eans

thos

e st

uden

ts w

ho re

quire

inte

nsiv

e or

ext

ensi

ve le

vels

of d

irect

su

ppor

t tha

t is

not o

f a te

mpo

rary

or t

rans

ient

nat

ure.

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s al

so re

quire

spe

-ci

ally

des

igne

d in

stru

ctio

n to

acq

uire

, mai

ntai

n or

gen

eral

ize

skill

s in

mul

tiple

set

tings

in o

rder

to s

ucce

ssfu

lly tr

ansf

er

skill

s to

nat

ural

set

tings

incl

udin

g th

e ho

me,

sch

ool,

wor

kpla

ce, a

nd c

omm

unity

. In

addi

tion,

thes

e st

uden

ts s

core

at

leas

t tw

o (2

) sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean

on s

tand

ardi

zed,

nor

m-r

efer

ence

d as

sess

men

ts fo

r ada

ptiv

e be

hav-

ior a

nd in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

.

GU

IDA

NC

E F

OR

IND

IVID

UA

LIZE

D E

DU

CAT

ION

PR

OG

RA

M (I

EP

) TE

AM

S: S

TUD

EN

T PA

RTI

CIP

ATIO

N IN

STA

TE-

WID

E A

SS

ES

SM

EN

TS F

OR

AC

CO

UN

TAB

ILIT

Y A

ND

GR

AD

UAT

ION

Nov

embe

r, 20

18 (p

. 10)

Sou

rce:

fhttp

://w

ww

.k12

.wa.

us/S

peci

alE

d/R

esou

rceL

ibra

ry/p

ubdo

cs/IE

P-T

eam

-Gui

delin

es-A

sses

s.pd

f

Wes

t Virg

inia

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties

that

sig

nific

antly

impa

ct in

telle

c-tu

al fu

nctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or. A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

s ar

e es

sent

ial t

o liv

e in

depe

nden

tly a

nd to

func

tion

safe

ly

in d

aily

life

. Whe

n ad

aptiv

e be

havi

ors

are

sign

ifica

ntly

impa

cted

it m

eans

that

the

indi

vidu

al is

unl

ikel

y to

dev

elop

the

skill

s ne

cess

ary

to li

ve in

depe

nden

tly a

nd fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

. In

othe

r wor

ds, s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s im

pact

stu

dent

s bo

th in

and

out

of t

he c

lass

room

and

acr

oss

life

dom

ains

, not

just

in a

cade

mic

dom

ains

. Elig

ibili

ty fo

r pa

rtici

patio

n re

quire

s th

at th

e st

uden

t has

a c

urre

nt IE

P, a

mul

tidis

cipl

inar

y ev

alua

tion,

and

edu

catio

nal p

erfo

rman

ce

data

that

sup

ports

the

deci

sion

for a

n al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent.

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

FO

R P

AR

TIC

IPAT

ION

IN W

ES

T V

IRG

INIA

STA

TE A

SS

ES

SM

EN

TS 2

018-

2019

, (p.

69)

Sou

rce:

http

://w

vde.

stat

e.w

v.us

/ass

essm

ent/G

UID

ELI

NE

SFO

RPA

RTI

CIP

ATIO

N/D

OC

UM

EN

TS/P

artic

ipat

ionG

uide

-lin

es.p

df

73NCEO

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Was

hing

ton

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s m

eans

thos

e st

uden

ts w

ho re

quire

inte

nsiv

e or

ext

ensi

ve le

vels

of d

irect

su

ppor

t tha

t is

not o

f a te

mpo

rary

or t

rans

ient

nat

ure.

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s al

so re

quire

spe

-ci

ally

des

igne

d in

stru

ctio

n to

acq

uire

, mai

ntai

n or

gen

eral

ize

skill

s in

mul

tiple

set

tings

in o

rder

to s

ucce

ssfu

lly tr

ansf

er

skill

s to

nat

ural

set

tings

incl

udin

g th

e ho

me,

sch

ool,

wor

kpla

ce, a

nd c

omm

unity

. In

addi

tion,

thes

e st

uden

ts s

core

at

leas

t tw

o (2

) sta

ndar

d de

viat

ions

bel

ow th

e m

ean

on s

tand

ardi

zed,

nor

m-r

efer

ence

d as

sess

men

ts fo

r ada

ptiv

e be

hav-

ior a

nd in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

.

GU

IDA

NC

E F

OR

IND

IVID

UA

LIZE

D E

DU

CAT

ION

PR

OG

RA

M (I

EP

) TE

AM

S: S

TUD

EN

T PA

RTI

CIP

ATIO

N IN

STA

TE-

WID

E A

SS

ES

SM

EN

TS F

OR

AC

CO

UN

TAB

ILIT

Y A

ND

GR

AD

UAT

ION

Nov

embe

r, 20

18 (p

. 10)

Sou

rce:

fhttp

://w

ww

.k12

.wa.

us/S

peci

alE

d/R

esou

rceL

ibra

ry/p

ubdo

cs/IE

P-T

eam

-Gui

delin

es-A

sses

s.pd

f

Wes

t Virg

inia

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s ha

ve a

dis

abili

ty o

r mul

tiple

dis

abili

ties

that

sig

nific

antly

impa

ct in

telle

c-tu

al fu

nctio

ning

and

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or. A

dapt

ive

beha

vior

s ar

e es

sent

ial t

o liv

e in

depe

nden

tly a

nd to

func

tion

safe

ly

in d

aily

life

. Whe

n ad

aptiv

e be

havi

ors

are

sign

ifica

ntly

impa

cted

it m

eans

that

the

indi

vidu

al is

unl

ikel

y to

dev

elop

the

skill

s ne

cess

ary

to li

ve in

depe

nden

tly a

nd fu

nctio

n sa

fely

in d

aily

life

. In

othe

r wor

ds, s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s im

pact

stu

dent

s bo

th in

and

out

of t

he c

lass

room

and

acr

oss

life

dom

ains

, not

just

in a

cade

mic

dom

ains

. Elig

ibili

ty fo

r pa

rtici

patio

n re

quire

s th

at th

e st

uden

t has

a c

urre

nt IE

P, a

mul

tidis

cipl

inar

y ev

alua

tion,

and

edu

catio

nal p

erfo

rman

ce

data

that

sup

ports

the

deci

sion

for a

n al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent.

GU

IDE

LIN

ES

FO

R P

AR

TIC

IPAT

ION

IN W

ES

T V

IRG

INIA

STA

TE A

SS

ES

SM

EN

TS 2

018-

2019

, (p.

69)

Sou

rce:

http

://w

vde.

stat

e.w

v.us

/ass

essm

ent/G

UID

ELI

NE

SFO

RPA

RTI

CIP

ATIO

N/D

OC

UM

EN

TS/P

artic

ipat

ionG

uide

-lin

es.p

df

Stat

e D

efini

tion

and

Sour

ce

Wis

cons

inS

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

is c

hara

cter

ized

by

scor

es o

n ve

rbal

or n

onve

rbal

ass

essm

ents

of c

ogni

tion

that

ar

e at

leas

t 2½

–3 s

tand

ard

devi

atio

ns b

elow

the

mea

n. A

cade

mic

defi

cits

or d

ifficu

lties

alo

ne d

o no

t ind

icat

e th

at

a st

uden

t has

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Fur

ther

, a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

will

be

perv

asiv

e, a

ffect

ing

stud

ent l

earn

ing

acro

ss c

onte

nt a

reas

and

in s

ocia

l and

com

mun

ity s

ettin

gs. N

ot a

ll st

uden

ts w

ith in

telle

ctua

l dis

-ab

ilitie

s ha

ve th

e m

ost s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

Stu

dent

s sh

ould

be

care

fully

con

side

red

for t

he a

ltern

ate

aca-

dem

ic a

chie

vem

ent s

tand

ards

, the

Wis

cons

in E

ssen

tial E

lem

ents

, and

they

sho

uld

not a

utom

atic

ally

be

assi

gned

to

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t bas

ed o

n th

eir i

dent

ified

dis

abili

ty c

ateg

ory.

Man

y st

uden

ts e

ligib

le to

rece

ive

spec

ial

educ

atio

n se

rvic

es u

nder

thes

e ca

tego

rical

labe

ls a

re a

ble

to p

artic

ipat

e in

gen

eral

cur

ricul

um, w

hen

prov

ided

with

sp

ecia

lly d

esig

ned

inst

ruct

ion,

as

wel

l any

nee

ded

rela

ted

serv

ices

, sup

plem

enta

ry a

ids

and

serv

ices

(e.g

. ins

truc-

tiona

l acc

omm

odat

ions

), an

d pr

ogra

m m

odifi

catio

ns a

nd s

uppo

rts fo

r sch

ool s

taff.

For

tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

on o

b-ta

inin

g a

leve

l of c

ogni

tion

for s

tude

nts

who

may

be

diffi

cult

to a

sses

s, p

leas

e re

view

the

Gui

danc

e an

d W

orks

heet

on

Obt

aini

ng a

Val

id C

ogni

tive

Abi

litie

s A

sses

smen

t fou

nd o

n th

e D

epar

tmen

t of P

ublic

Inst

ruct

ion

(DP

I) In

telle

ctua

l D

isab

ilitie

s w

ebpa

ge.

Ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or re

late

s to

inde

pend

ence

in e

very

day

livin

g sk

ills,

incl

udin

g in

terp

erso

nal a

nd s

ocia

l int

erac

tions

ac

ross

mul

tiple

set

tings

. To

be c

onsi

dere

d a

stud

ent w

ith a

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y, s

tude

nts

shou

ld

dem

onst

rate

defi

cits

in a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

with

sco

res

that

are

at l

east

2½

–3 s

tand

ard

devi

atio

ns b

elow

the

mea

n in

at

leas

t tw

o ad

aptiv

e sk

ill d

omai

ns b

elow

.

•C

once

ptua

l ski

lls: r

ecep

tive

and

expr

essi

ve la

ngua

ge, r

eadi

ng a

nd w

ritin

g, m

oney

con

cept

s, s

elf-d

irect

ion.

•S

ocia

l ski

lls: i

nter

pers

onal

, res

pons

ibili

ty, s

elf-e

stee

m, f

ollo

ws

rule

s, o

beys

law

s, is

not

gul

lible

, and

avo

ids

vict

imiz

atio

n.

•P

ract

ical

ski

lls: p

erso

nal a

ctiv

ities

of d

aily

livi

ng s

uch

as e

atin

g, d

ress

ing,

mob

ility

and

toile

ting;

inst

rum

enta

l ac

tiviti

es o

f dai

ly li

ving

suc

h as

pre

parin

g m

eals

, tak

ing

med

icat

ion,

usi

ng th

e te

leph

one,

man

agin

g m

oney

, us

ing

trans

porta

tion

and

doin

g ho

usek

eepi

ng a

ctiv

ities

; occ

upat

iona

l ski

lls; m

aint

aini

ng a

saf

e en

viro

nmen

t

GU

IDE

TO

DE

TER

MIN

ING

STU

DE

NTS

WIT

H T

HE

MO

ST

SIG

NIF

ICA

NT

CO

GN

ITIV

E D

ISA

BIL

ITIE

S (p

. 5)

Sou

rce:

http

s://d

pi.w

i.gov

/site

s/de

faul

t/file

s/im

ce/s

ped/

pdf/m

scd-

guid

e-to

-det

erm

inin

g-st

uden

ts-w

ith-m

scd.

pdf

74 NCEO

75NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

I

Crit

eria

Incl

uded

in D

efini

tions

of S

igni

fican

t Cog

nitiv

e D

isab

ilitie

s

Stat

e

Sign

ifica

nt

Cog

nitiv

e D

efici

ts

Poor

Ada

p-tiv

e Sk

ill

Leve

l

Una

ble

to R

each

Gra

de L

evel

Sta

n-da

rds

Exte

nsiv

e, In

di-

vidu

aliz

ed, D

irect

In

stru

ctio

n

Perv

asiv

e N

eeds

A

cros

s Se

tting

s or

Ti

me

Ref

eren

ce S

core

for

IQ a

nd/o

r Ada

ptiv

e Fu

nctio

nA

LX

XX

X

AK

XX

X

AZ

XX

AR

XX

XX

CA

XX

CO

XX

X

CT

XX

X

DC

XX

FLX

XX

HI

XX

X

ILX

XX

X

INX

KS

XX

X

KY

XX

XX

ME

XX

MD

XX

XX

MO

XX

XX

NE

XX

XX

X

NH

XX

XX

NJ

XX

XX

X

76 NCEO

Stat

e

Sign

ifica

nt

Cog

nitiv

e D

efici

ts

Poor

Ada

p-tiv

e Sk

ill

Leve

l

Una

ble

to R

each

Gra

de L

evel

Sta

n-da

rds

Exte

nsiv

e, In

di-

vidu

aliz

ed, D

irect

In

stru

ctio

n

Perv

asiv

e N

eeds

A

cros

s Se

tting

s or

Ti

me

Ref

eren

ce S

core

for

IQ a

nd/o

r Ada

ptiv

e Fu

nctio

nN

YX

X

NC

XX

X

OH

XX

OK

XX

X

OR

XX

XX

X

PAX

XX

XX

X

RI

XX

XX

X

SC

XX

XX

XX

SD

XX

XX

X

TNX

XX

XX

TXX

XX

X

UT

X*

XX

X

VAX

XX

X

WA

XX

XX

X

WV

XX

X

WI

XX

XX

Tota

lU

T Si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity:

Sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

refe

rs to

a s

mal

l num

ber o

f stu

dent

s w

ho a

re w

ithin

one

or m

ore

exis

ting

cate

gorie

s of

dis

abili

ty u

nder

the

IDE

A (e

.g.,

autis

m, m

ultip

le d

isab

ilitie

s,

traum

atic

bra

in in

jury

, and

inte

llect

ual d

isab

ility

).

77NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

I -

Co

nti

nu

ed

Crit

eria

Incl

uded

in D

efini

tions

of S

igni

fican

t Cog

nitiv

e D

isab

ilitie

s

Stat

e

Not

Sol

ely

Bas

ed o

n IQ

Sc

ore,

Hol

istic

Not

Due

to

Exce

ssiv

e A

bsen

ces

Not

Due

to

Cer

tain

D

isab

ilitie

s (e

.g.,

SLD

)

Not

Due

to S

ocia

l, C

ultu

ral,

or E

co-

nom

ic F

acto

rs

Nee

d fo

r Com

mun

ica-

tion/

Ass

istiv

e Te

ch-

nolo

gy S

yste

ms

Oth

erA

LX

AK

AZ

X

AR

XX

*

CA

X

CO

X

CT

DC

X

FLX

HI

XX

*

IL INX

KS

KY

XX

XX

*

ME

X

MD

XX

MO

XX

*

NE

XX

*

NH

XX

X*

78 NCEO

Stat

e

Not

Sol

ely

Bas

ed o

n IQ

Sc

ore,

Hol

istic

Not

Due

to

Exce

ssiv

e A

bsen

ces

Not

Due

to

Cer

tain

D

isab

ilitie

s (e

.g.,

SLD

)

Not

Due

to S

ocia

l, C

ultu

ral,

or E

co-

nom

ic F

acto

rs

Nee

d fo

r Com

mun

ica-

tion/

Ass

istiv

e Te

ch-

nolo

gy S

yste

ms

Oth

erN

J

NY

XX

*

NC

OH

X

OK

X

OR

XX

X*

PAX

RI

SC

X

SD TN

XX

XX

TXX

*

UT

XX

*

VAX

WA

WV

X*

WI

Tota

l19

25

25

10

*See

not

es b

elow

.A

R O

ther

: Not

due

to p

revi

ous

acad

emic

per

form

ance

or n

eed

for a

ccom

mod

atio

n, o

r dis

abili

ty la

bel.

HI N

eed

for c

omm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

s: T

hese

lim

itatio

ns a

re e

vide

nced

by

the

need

for s

igni

fican

tly a

ccom

mod

ated

rece

ptiv

e an

d ex

pres

sive

com

mun

icat

ion

sys-

tem

s (e

.g.,

supp

lem

enta

tion

with

pic

ture

s/sy

mbo

ls, a

ssis

tive

tech

nolo

gy d

evic

es, e

tc.).

K

Y O

ther

: R

equi

re e

xten

sive

indi

vidu

aliz

ed in

stru

ctio

n ac

ross

mul

tiple

set

tings

to a

cces

s an

d m

ake

prog

ress

in th

e K

entu

cky

Aca

dem

ic S

tand

ards

, and

to m

aint

ain,

gen

eral

ize

and

dem

onst

rate

lear

ning

,

79NCEO

Hav

e a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y th

at is

not

prim

arily

the

resu

lt of

: •

thos

e id

entifi

ed a

s E

nglis

h Le

arne

rs (E

L)

•pr

e-de

term

ined

poo

r per

form

ance

on

the

grad

e-le

vel a

sses

smen

t •

disp

lays

dis

rupt

ive

beha

vior

s or

exp

erie

nces

em

otio

nal d

ures

s du

ring

test

ing

•ad

min

istra

tor d

ecis

ion

•ed

ucat

iona

l env

ironm

ent o

r ins

truct

iona

l set

ting

MO

Oth

er: W

hile

IDE

A do

es n

ot p

rovi

de a

ny g

uida

nce

on d

eter

min

ing

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies,

it d

oes

stat

e, u

nder

Sec

tion

300.

304(

3)(c

)(1)

“A

sses

smen

ts a

nd o

ther

eva

luat

ion

mat

eria

ls u

sed

to a

sses

s a

child

und

er th

is p

art—

(i) a

re s

elec

ted

and

adm

inis

tere

d so

as

not t

o be

dis

crim

inat

ory

on a

raci

al

or c

ultu

ral b

asis

; (ii)

are

pro

vide

d an

d ad

min

iste

red

in th

e ch

ild’s

nat

ive

lang

uage

or o

ther

mod

e of

com

mun

icat

ion

and

in th

e fo

rm m

ost l

ikel

y to

yie

ld a

ccur

ate

info

rmat

ion

on w

hat t

he c

hild

kno

ws

and

can

do a

cade

mic

ally,

dev

elop

men

tally

, and

func

tiona

lly, u

nles

s it

is c

lear

ly n

ot fe

asib

le to

so

prov

ide

or a

dmin

iste

r; (ii

i) ar

e us

ed fo

r the

pur

pose

s fo

r whi

ch th

e as

sess

men

ts o

r mea

sure

s ar

e va

lid a

nd re

liabl

e; (i

v) a

re a

dmin

iste

red

by tr

aine

d an

d kn

owle

dgea

ble

pers

onne

l; an

d (v

) are

ad

min

iste

red

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith a

ny in

stru

ctio

ns p

rovi

ded

by th

e pr

oduc

er o

f the

ass

essm

ents

.”

NE

Oth

er: T

he s

tude

nt m

ay h

ave

acco

mpa

nyin

g co

mm

unic

atio

n, m

otor

, sen

sory

, or o

ther

impa

irmen

ts.

NH

Oth

er: L

imite

d C

omm

unic

atio

n: T

he s

tude

nt m

ay h

ave

very

lim

ited

voca

bula

ry a

nd la

ngua

ge s

kills

, or m

ay b

e no

n-ve

rbal

. The

stu

dent

may

use

sim

ple

lang

uage

st

ruct

ures

to c

omm

unic

ate

and

seld

om a

cqui

res

new

com

mun

icat

ion

skill

s th

roug

h in

cide

ntal

lear

ning

. Thi

s do

es n

ot in

clud

e an

y st

uden

t with

“lim

ited

com

mun

i-ca

tion”

who

has

no

effe

ctiv

e co

mm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

in p

lace

or u

nder

act

ive

deve

lopm

ent;

AN

D V

ery

Low

Lev

els

of A

cade

mic

Ach

ieve

men

t: Pe

rform

ance

in th

e su

bjec

t mat

ters

of R

eadi

ng, W

ritin

g,

Mat

hem

atic

s, a

nd S

cien

ce is

sig

nific

antly

bel

ow th

at o

f sam

e-ag

ed p

eers

. Thi

s do

es n

ot in

clud

e st

uden

ts w

orki

ng ju

st 1

or 2

gr

ade

leve

ls b

elow

gra

de-le

vel,

or a

ny s

tude

nt w

ho

has

not h

ad fu

ll op

portu

nity

to b

enefi

t fro

m e

mpi

rical

ly s

ound

inst

ruct

iona

l int

erve

ntio

n. T

his

also

doe

s no

t inc

lude

an

y st

uden

t who

has

, as

docu

men

ted

in IE

P te

am m

eetin

g no

tes,

had

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

“rule

d ou

t” in

ord

er to

iden

tify

the

stud

ent a

s a

child

hav

ing

a sp

ecifi

c le

arni

ng d

isab

ility

.

NY

Oth

er: “

Stu

dent

s w

ith s

ever

e di

sabi

litie

s” re

fers

to s

tude

nts

who

hav

e lim

ited

cogn

itive

abi

litie

s co

mbi

ned

with

beh

avio

ral a

nd/o

r phy

sica

l lim

itatio

ns a

nd w

ho

requ

ire h

ighl

y sp

ecia

lized

edu

catio

n an

d/or

soc

ial,

psyc

holo

gica

l, an

d m

edic

al s

ervi

ces

in o

rder

to m

axim

ize

thei

r ful

l pot

entia

l for

use

ful a

nd m

eani

ngfu

l par

ticip

atio

n in

soc

iety

and

for s

elf-

fulfi

llmen

t. S

tude

nts

with

sev

ere

disa

bilit

ies

may

exp

erie

nce

seve

re s

peec

h, la

ngua

ge, a

nd/o

r per

cept

ual-c

ogni

tive

impa

irmen

ts a

nd c

halle

ng-

ing

beha

vior

s th

at in

terfe

re w

ith le

arni

ng a

nd s

ocia

lizat

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties.

The

se s

tude

nts

may

als

o ha

ve e

xtre

mel

y fra

gile

phy

siol

ogic

al c

ondi

tions

and

may

requ

ire

pers

onal

car

e, p

hysi

cal/v

erba

l sup

ports

, and

ass

istiv

e te

chno

logy

dev

ices

.

OR

Oth

er: T

hese

stu

dent

s m

ay a

lso

rely

on

adul

ts fo

r per

sona

l car

e an

d ha

ve m

edic

al c

ondi

tions

that

requ

ire p

hysi

cal/v

erba

l sup

ports

, and

ass

istiv

e te

chno

logy

de

vice

sTX

Oth

er: i

s N

OT

iden

tified

bas

ed o

n E

nglis

h le

arne

r des

igna

tion

or s

olel

y on

the

basi

s of

pre

viou

s lo

w a

cade

mic

ach

ieve

men

t or t

he n

eed

for a

ccom

mod

atio

ns;

UT

Oth

er: T

he s

tude

nt’s

dis

abili

ty in

crea

ses

the

need

for d

epen

denc

e on

oth

ers

for m

any,

if n

ot a

ll, d

aily

livi

ng n

eeds

, and

the

stud

ent i

s ex

pect

ed to

requ

ire e

xten

-si

ve o

ngoi

ng s

uppo

rt th

roug

h ad

ulth

ood.

W

V O

ther

: Elig

ibili

ty fo

r par

ticip

atio

n re

quire

s th

at th

e st

uden

t has

a c

urre

nt IE

P, a

mul

tidis

cipl

inar

y ev

alua

tion,

edu

catio

nal p

erfo

rman

ce d

ata

that

sup

ports

the

deci

-si

on fo

r an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t, an

IEP

that

spe

cifie

s th

at th

e st

uden

t mee

ts c

riter

ia fo

r an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t, ex

plai

ning

why

the

stud

ent c

anno

t par

ticip

ate

in th

e W

VG

SA

Gra

des

3-8

and

CB

A or

SAT

Sch

ool D

ay, a

nd d

ocum

ent a

ny a

ccom

mod

atio

ns u

sed

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith W

VS

.326

pro

cedu

res.

Als

o, th

e pa

rent

and

st

uden

t mus

t be

invo

lved

and

info

rmed

, inc

ludi

ng h

avin

g ex

plai

ned

that

the

stud

ent w

ill g

radu

ate

with

a m

odifi

ed o

r alte

rnat

e di

plom

a.

80 NCEO

81NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

J

How

Par

ent/G

uard

ian

is In

form

ed in

Mat

eria

ls fo

r A

A-A

AA

S

Stat

e

Stud

ent W

ill

Take

AA

-A

AA

S

Men

tions

A

ltern

ate

Stan

-da

rds

Effe

ct o

n D

iplo

ma

Type

o

r Pos

t-sec

onda

ry

Opt

ions

Info

rm

Stud

ent

Als

o

Pare

nt/

Gua

rdia

n Si

gna-

ture

or I

nitia

lsIn

form

of O

ptio

ns if

Pa

rent

/Gua

rdia

n

Doe

s N

ot A

gree

AL

XX

XX

AK

XX

AZ

XX

X

AR

XX

XX

CA

XX

X

DE

XX

XX

DC

XX

X

FLX

XX

X

HI

XX

X

KY

XX

LAX

XX

ME

XX

X

MD

XX

X

82 NCEO

Stat

e

Stud

ent W

ill

Take

AA

-A

AA

S

Men

tions

A

ltern

ate

Stan

-da

rds

Effe

ct o

n D

iplo

ma

Type

o

r Pos

t-sec

onda

ry

Opt

ions

Info

rm

Stud

ent

Als

o

Pare

nt/

Gua

rdia

n Si

gna-

ture

or I

nitia

lsIn

form

of O

ptio

ns if

Pa

rent

/Gua

rdia

n

Doe

s N

ot A

gree

MA

XX

XX

MI

XX

NV

XX

X

NM

XX

X

NC

XX

OH

X

RI

XX

X

SC

XX

XX

TNX

XX

X

TXX

X

VAX

XX

WV

XX

XX

X

WI

XX

X

Tota

l25

1816

117

3

83NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

K

Par

ent I

nfor

mat

ion

Text

s

Stat

ePa

rent

Tex

t

Ala

bam

aE

SS

A al

so re

quire

s LE

As

to e

nsur

e th

at a

s pa

rt of

the

IEP

the

pare

nt o

f stu

dent

s w

ho w

ill p

artic

ipat

e in

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

-m

ent a

re c

lear

ly in

form

ed th

at th

eir c

hild

’s a

cade

mic

ach

ieve

men

t will

be

mea

sure

d ba

sed

on in

stru

ctio

n fro

m a

ltern

ate

stan

-da

rds

and

that

par

ticip

atio

n in

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts p

repa

res

stud

ents

for s

uppo

rted/

com

petit

ive

empl

oym

ent.

This

form

mus

t be

sign

ed b

y th

e pa

rent

(s) a

fter t

he IE

P Te

am h

as d

eter

min

ed th

at th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent,

even

with

acc

omm

odat

ions

, wou

ld n

ot b

e an

acc

urat

e m

easu

rem

ent o

f aca

dem

ic a

chie

vem

ent,

and

ther

e-fo

re, t

he s

tude

nt w

ill p

artic

ipat

e in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t. Th

is d

ocum

ent w

ill b

ecom

e pa

rt of

the

stud

ent’s

IE

P an

d fil

ed w

ith th

e st

uden

t’s s

choo

l IE

P re

cord

. I u

nder

stan

d th

at m

y ch

ild’s

ach

ieve

men

t will

be

mea

-su

red

by p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent.

Ala

ska

Doc

umen

ting

the

Dec

isio

n in

the

Indi

vidu

aliz

ed E

duca

tion

Pro

gram

(IE

P)

The

follo

win

g in

form

atio

n m

ust b

e do

cum

ente

d an

d fil

ed in

the

stud

ent’s

spe

cial

edu

catio

n fil

e….A

n ac

know

ledg

emen

t, si

gned

by

the

pare

nt/g

uard

ian,

sta

ting

that

he

or s

he h

as b

een

notifi

ed th

at th

e st

uden

t is

taki

ng th

e A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent f

or th

e cu

r-re

nt s

choo

l yea

r. If

a pa

rent

/gua

rdia

n do

es n

ot a

ttend

the

IEP

mee

ting,

a le

tter o

f not

ifica

tion

mus

t be

sent

by

the

dist

rict.

Ariz

ona

Par

ent i

nfor

med

with

sig

natu

reIE

P Te

am S

tate

men

t of A

ssur

ance

: Our

dec

isio

n w

as b

ased

on

mul

tiple

pie

ces

of e

vide

nce

that

, whe

n ta

ken

toge

ther

, dem

on-

stra

ted

that

the

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t is

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

ass

essm

ent f

or th

is s

tude

nt; t

hat h

is/h

er a

cade

mic

inst

ruct

ion

will

be

bas

ed o

n th

e C

CC

s lin

ked

to s

tate

con

tent

sta

ndar

ds; t

hat t

he A

dditi

onal

Con

side

ratio

ns li

sted

abo

ve w

ere

not u

sed

to m

ake

this

dec

isio

n; a

nd th

at a

ny a

dditi

onal

impl

icat

ions

of t

his

deci

sion

wer

e di

scus

sed

thor

ough

ly.

Eac

h of

us

agre

es w

ith th

e pa

rtici

patio

n de

cisi

on in

MS

AA

:

84 NCEO

Stat

ePa

rent

Tex

t

Ark

ansa

sIE

P Te

am S

tate

men

t of A

ssur

ance

: Our

dec

isio

n w

as b

ased

on

mul

tiple

pie

ces

of e

vide

nce

that

, whe

n ta

ken

toge

ther

, dem

-on

stra

ted

that

the

Ark

ansa

s A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am is

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

ass

essm

ent f

or th

is s

tude

nt; t

hat h

is/h

er

acad

emic

inst

ruct

ion

will

be

base

d on

the

Ess

entia

l Ele

men

ts li

nked

to th

e A

rkan

sas

Aca

dem

ic S

tand

ards

; tha

t the

Add

ition

al

Con

side

ratio

ns li

sted

abo

ve w

ere

not u

sed

to m

ake

this

dec

isio

n; a

nd th

at a

ny a

dditi

onal

impl

icat

ions

of t

his

deci

sion

wer

e di

scus

sed

thor

ough

ly.

Eac

h of

us

agre

es w

ith th

e pa

rtici

patio

n de

cisi

on in

the

Ark

ansa

s A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am: [

sign

atur

e]

Cal

iforn

iaA

dditi

onal

ly, a

s pa

rt of

the

IEP

proc

ess,

par

ents

mus

t be

clea

rly in

form

ed th

at th

eir c

hild

’s a

chie

vem

ent i

s be

ing

mea

sure

d ag

ains

t alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds, a

nd o

f “ho

w p

artic

ipat

ion

in s

uch

asse

ssm

ents

may

del

ay o

r oth

erw

ise

affe

ct th

e st

uden

t fro

m c

ompl

etin

g th

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r a re

gula

r hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a.” W

hile

man

y of

the

stud

ents

taki

ng th

e C

AA

s ar

e no

t on

a “d

iplo

ma

track

,” th

is “d

oes

not p

recl

ude

a st

uden

t with

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

who

take

s an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t fro

m a

ttem

ptin

g to

com

plet

e th

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r a re

gula

r hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a.”

Del

awar

ePa

rent

/Gua

rdia

n: M

y in

itial

s be

low

sig

nifie

s th

at I

unde

rsta

nd th

at c

ontin

ued

parti

cipa

tion

in th

e D

eSS

A-A

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent

will

lead

to a

Dip

lom

a of

Alte

rnat

e A

chie

vem

ent S

tand

ards

. The

sta

ndar

ds a

sses

sed

in th

e D

eSS

A-A

lt ar

e le

ss c

ompl

ex th

an

the

Del

awar

e C

onte

nt S

tand

ards

ass

esse

d in

the

DeS

SA

gene

ral a

sses

smen

ts, t

here

fore

this

dip

lom

a m

ay o

r not

be

acce

pted

by

col

lege

s an

d te

chni

cal/t

rade

sch

ools

. [in

itial

s]A

ND

[bel

ow o

n sa

me

form

]IE

P te

am m

embe

rs: M

y si

gnat

ure

belo

w in

dica

tes

that

I ag

ree

with

the

deci

sion

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

DE

SS

A-A

lt, w

hich

is b

ased

on

alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds, b

ecau

se A

LL fo

ur c

riter

ia li

sted

hav

e be

en m

et. [

initi

als]

Dis

trict

of

Col

umbi

aPa

rent

info

rmed

with

sig

natu

reIE

P Te

am S

tate

men

t of A

ssur

ance

: Our

dec

isio

n w

as b

ased

on

mul

tiple

pie

ces

of e

vide

nce

that

, whe

n ta

ken

toge

ther

, dem

-on

stra

ted

that

the

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t is

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

ass

essm

ent f

or th

is s

tude

nt; t

hat h

is/h

er a

cade

mic

inst

ruct

ion

will

be

base

d on

the

NC

SC

CC

Cs

linke

d to

the

CC

SS

; tha

t the

Add

ition

al C

onsi

dera

tions

list

ed a

bove

wer

e no

t use

d to

mak

e th

is d

ecis

ion;

and

that

any

add

ition

al im

plic

atio

ns o

f thi

s de

cisi

on w

ere

disc

usse

d th

orou

ghly.

E

ach

of u

s pa

rtici

pate

d in

the

deci

sion

rega

rdin

g th

e D

C A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent:

85NCEO

Stat

ePa

rent

Tex

t

Flor

ida

A st

uden

t par

ticip

atin

g in

the

Flor

ida

Sta

ndar

ds A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent m

ust h

ave

this

par

ticip

atio

n de

term

ined

by

the

stud

ent’s

in

divi

dual

edu

catio

nal p

lan

(IEP

) tea

m a

nd w

ith p

aren

tal c

onse

nt.

AN

DTh

e pa

rent

mus

t sig

n co

nsen

t in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith R

ule

6A-6

.033

1(10

), F.

A.C

.A

ND

Par

enta

l Con

sent

For

m In

acc

orda

nce

with

Rul

e 6A

-6.0

331(

10)(

b), F

.A.C

., if

the

deci

sion

of t

he IE

P te

am is

that

the

stud

ent w

ill

parti

cipa

te in

Acc

ess

cour

ses

and

be a

sses

sed

thro

ugh

the

FSA

A, t

he p

aren

ts o

f the

stu

dent

mus

t giv

e si

gned

con

sent

to h

ave

thei

r chi

ld in

stru

cted

in A

cces

s P

oint

s an

d th

e st

uden

t’s a

chie

vem

ent m

easu

red

base

d on

alte

rnat

e ac

adem

ic a

chie

vem

ent

stan

dard

s. T

his

deci

sion

mus

t be

docu

men

ted

on th

e P

aren

tal C

onse

nt F

orm

—In

stru

ctio

n in

the

Sta

te S

tand

ards

Acc

ess

Poi

nts

Cur

ricul

um a

nd F

SA

A ad

min

istra

tion,

ava

ilabl

e at

http

s://w

ww

.flru

les.

org/

gate

way

/refe

renc

e.as

p?N

o=R

ef-0

4779

. If t

he p

aren

ts

fail

to re

spon

d af

ter r

easo

nabl

e ef

forts

by

the

scho

ol d

istri

ct to

obt

ain

cons

ent,

the

scho

ol d

istri

ct m

ay p

rovi

de in

stru

ctio

n in

the

stat

e st

anda

rds

Acc

ess

Poi

nts

curr

icul

um a

nd a

dmin

iste

r the

FS

AA

. The

IEP

shou

ld in

clud

e a

stat

emen

t of w

hy th

e st

uden

t ca

nnot

par

ticip

ate

in th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent a

nd w

hy th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s ap

prop

riate

.

Haw

aii

ES

SA

also

requ

ires

that

par

ents

be

info

rmed

of t

he p

oten

tial c

onse

quen

ces,

suc

h as

pot

entia

l lim

itatio

ns o

n po

stse

cond

ary

op-

portu

nitie

s, fo

r the

ir ch

ild if

he

or s

he is

bei

ng a

sses

sed

agai

nst a

ltern

ate

achi

evem

ent s

tand

ards

.

Ken

tuck

yP

aren

ts g

iven

gui

de a

nd o

ppor

tuni

ty to

ask

que

stio

ns. I

f par

ent o

r oth

er A

RC

mem

ber d

oes

not a

gree

with

AR

C d

ecis

ion,

ther

e is

a p

roce

ss.

The

pare

nt w

as p

rovi

ded

a co

py o

f the

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Par

ent G

uide

with

an

oppo

rtuni

ty to

ask

que

stio

ns. I

f yes

, ind

icat

e be

low

whe

n th

e G

uide

was

pro

vide

d to

the

pare

nts.

If n

o, p

rovi

de a

cop

y of

the

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Par

ent G

uide

and

an

oppo

rtuni

ty to

ask

que

stio

ns…

. If t

he A

RC

has

exh

aust

ed a

ll av

aila

ble

optio

ns fo

r con

sens

us a

nd s

till i

s no

t abl

e to

com

e to

an

agre

emen

t, th

e di

stric

t mak

es th

e fin

al d

eter

min

atio

n an

d M

US

T pr

ovid

e th

e pa

rent

with

prio

r writ

ten

notic

e of

the

deci

sion

. …

Sho

uld

the

disp

ute

cont

inue

afte

r the

dis

trict

has

pro

vide

d th

e pa

rent

with

prio

r writ

ten

notic

e, th

e pa

rent

may

dis

pute

the

deci

-si

on v

ia a

ny o

f the

dis

pute

reso

lutio

n op

tions

.

Loui

sian

aPa

rent

al U

nder

stan

ding

: If m

y ch

ild is

elig

ible

for a

nd p

artic

ipat

es in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t, m

y in

itial

s in

dica

te I

unde

r-st

and

the

stat

emen

ts b

elow

: _T

estin

g in

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts m

eans

my

child

has

an

inst

ruct

iona

l pro

gram

alig

ned

with

the

Loui

sian

a C

onne

ctor

s S

tan-

dard

s.

_My

child

may

be

taug

ht fu

nctio

nal s

kills

as

need

ed, b

ut th

ese

skill

s ar

e no

t ass

esse

d on

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts.

_The

dec

isio

n fo

r my

child

to p

artic

ipat

e in

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts m

ust b

e m

ade

annu

ally

…. [

Par

ent s

igna

ture

] __

____

____

___

86 NCEO

Stat

ePa

rent

Tex

t

Mai

neP

aren

t inf

orm

ed w

ith s

igna

ture

IEP

Team

Sta

tem

ent o

f Ass

uran

ce: O

ur d

ecis

ion

was

bas

ed o

n m

ultip

le p

iece

s of

evi

denc

e th

at, w

hen

take

n to

geth

er, d

emon

-st

rate

d th

at th

e A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent i

s th

e m

ost a

ppro

pria

te a

sses

smen

t for

this

stu

dent

; tha

t his

/her

aca

dem

ic in

stru

ctio

n w

ill

be b

ased

on

the

CC

Cs

linke

d to

sta

te c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

; tha

t the

Add

ition

al C

onsi

dera

tions

list

ed a

bove

wer

e no

t use

d to

mak

e th

is d

ecis

ion;

and

that

any

add

ition

al im

plic

atio

ns o

f thi

s de

cisi

on w

ere

disc

usse

d th

orou

ghly.

E

ach

of u

s ag

rees

that

the

stud

ent w

ill p

artic

ipat

e in

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t app

ropr

iate

to M

EA

asse

ssm

ents

.

Mar

ylan

d8.

Wha

t pro

cess

sho

uld

be fo

llow

ed if

the

pare

nt d

isag

rees

with

the

IEP

team

’s d

ecis

ion

for t

he s

tude

nt to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e M

aryl

and

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts?

Effe

ctiv

e Ju

ly 1

, 201

7, M

aryl

and

law

requ

ires

that

the

IEP

team

mus

t obt

ain

the

writ

ten

cons

ent o

f a p

aren

t if t

he te

am p

ropo

ses

to id

entif

y a

child

for t

he M

aryl

and

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts (M

d. C

ode

Ann

., E

duc.

§8-

405(

f)).

If th

e pa

rent

doe

s no

t pro

vide

writ

ten

cons

ent t

o id

entif

y th

eir c

hild

for t

he M

aryl

and

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts, t

he IE

P te

am m

ust

send

the

pare

nt w

ritte

n no

tice

of th

eir c

onse

nt ri

ghts

no

late

r tha

n fiv

e (5

) bus

ines

s da

ys a

fter t

he IE

P te

am m

eetin

g in

form

ing

them

that

: 1) t

he p

aren

t has

the

right

to e

ither

con

sent

to o

r ref

use

to c

onse

nt to

the

actio

n pr

opos

ed; a

nd 2

) if t

he p

aren

t doe

s no

t pro

vide

writ

ten

cons

ent o

r a w

ritte

n re

fusa

l with

in fi

fteen

(15)

bus

ines

s da

ys o

f the

IEP

team

mee

ting,

the

IEP

team

may

im

plem

ent t

he p

ropo

sed

actio

n (M

d. C

ode

Ann

., E

duc.

§8-

405(

f)(2)

). If

the

pare

nt p

rovi

des

a w

ritte

n re

fusa

l, th

e IE

P te

am m

ay n

ot id

entif

y th

e ch

ild fo

r the

Mar

ylan

d A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ents

. If t

he

IEP

team

dis

agre

es w

ith th

e pa

rent

’s d

ecis

ion

and/

or d

eter

min

es th

at th

e fa

ilure

to p

rovi

de c

onse

nt re

sults

in a

failu

re to

pro

vide

th

e ch

ild w

ith a

free

app

ropr

iate

pub

lic e

duca

tion

(FA

PE

), th

e IE

P te

am m

ay u

se th

e di

sput

e re

solu

tion

optio

ns li

sted

in E

duca

-tio

n A

rticl

e §8

-413

(med

iatio

n or

due

pro

cess

) to

reso

lve

the

mat

ter (

Md.

Cod

e A

nn.,

Edu

c. §

8-40

5(f)(

3)).

For f

urth

er in

form

atio

n on

the

rece

nt P

aren

tal C

onse

nt le

gisl

atio

n, p

leas

e re

fer t

o th

e Te

chni

cal A

ssis

tanc

e B

ulle

tin, “

Par

enta

l Con

sent

Und

er M

aryl

and

Law

.” B

egin

ning

Jul

y 1,

201

7, p

aren

ts m

ust p

rovi

de w

ritte

n co

nsen

t for

thei

r chi

ld to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e M

aryl

and

Alte

r-na

te A

sses

smen

ts (M

d. C

ode

Ann

., E

duc.

§8-

405(

f))

Mas

sach

uset

tsE

SS

A al

so re

quire

s th

at p

aren

ts/g

uard

ians

of s

tude

nts

with

dis

abili

ties

who

take

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts b

e cl

early

info

rmed

as

part

of th

e IE

P pr

oces

s th

at th

eir c

hild

’s a

cade

mic

ach

ieve

men

t will

be

mea

sure

d ba

sed

on “a

ltern

ate

achi

evem

ent s

tand

ards

;” an

d pa

rtici

patio

n in

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t may

del

ay o

r oth

erw

ise

affe

ct th

eir c

hild

’s c

ompl

etio

n of

the

requ

irem

ents

for a

di

plom

a.A

ND

The

sign

ed IE

P si

gnifi

es c

onse

nt b

y th

e pa

rent

to h

ave

the

stud

ent p

artic

ipat

e in

the

MC

AS

-Alt.

Mic

higa

nIf

the

IEP

team

det

erm

ines

that

MI-A

cces

s is

the

mos

t app

ropr

iate

sta

te le

vel a

sses

smen

t for

any

giv

en s

tude

nt, t

he s

choo

l m

ust p

rovi

de in

form

atio

n to

that

stu

dent

’s p

aren

ts re

gard

ing

any

impl

icat

ion

this

dec

isio

n m

ay h

ave

on th

e st

uden

t com

plet

ing

the

requ

irem

ents

for a

regu

lar h

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma.

87NCEO

Stat

ePa

rent

Tex

t

Nev

ada

Has

the

IEP

team

info

rmed

the

pare

nt/g

uard

ian

of th

e co

nseq

uenc

es o

f the

stu

dent

par

ticip

atin

g in

the

Nev

ada

Alte

rnat

e A

s-se

ssm

ent (

e.g.

, mod

ified

dip

lom

a vs

. sta

ndar

d di

plom

a) a

nd o

f bei

ng ju

dged

aga

inst

alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds?

New

Mex

ico

Par

ents

hav

e be

en in

form

ed o

f the

pot

entia

l con

sequ

ence

s of

hav

ing

thei

r stu

dent

ass

esse

d ag

ains

t alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t st

anda

rds

(suc

h as

pot

entia

l lim

itatio

ns to

pos

tsec

onda

ry o

ppor

tuni

ties)

. Als

o, m

ultip

le e

vide

nce

need

to b

e pr

ovid

ed to

ans

wer

qu

estio

ns in

par

ticip

atio

n cr

iteria

.

Nor

th C

arol

ina

The

stud

ent m

eets

the

crite

ria a

bove

and

has

a w

ritte

n pa

rent

al re

ques

t for

the

adm

inis

tratio

n of

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t (i.e

., C

CR

AA

or N

CE

XTE

ND

1). N

ote:

Dec

isio

ns re

gard

ing

whi

ch a

sses

smen

ts a

stu

dent

with

dis

abili

ties

will

par

ticip

ate

in m

ust b

e m

ade

annu

ally

by

the

IEP

team

. The

refo

re, i

f a s

tude

nt’s

cur

rent

IEP

desi

gnat

e pa

rtici

patio

n in

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t, th

e IE

P ca

n se

rve

as d

ocum

enta

tion

of th

e w

ritte

n pa

rent

al re

ques

t.

Ohi

oH

as p

lace

for p

aren

t sig

natu

re o

n fo

rm.

Rho

de Is

land

IEP

Team

Ass

uran

ce: T

he IE

P te

am h

as th

orou

ghly

dis

cuss

ed th

e ev

iden

ce g

athe

red

to d

eter

min

e el

igib

ility

, how

that

evi

denc

e al

igns

to th

e th

ree

crite

ria, i

t has

use

d on

ly th

e th

ree

parti

cipa

tion

crite

ria a

bove

, and

no

othe

rs, t

o re

ach

that

dec

isio

n (L

ists

1

and

2 on

pag

es 1

0 an

d 11

). Th

e IE

P te

am h

as in

form

ed th

e pa

rent

(s) o

f the

impl

icat

ions

of t

heir

child

’s p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ents

, nam

ely

that

:· T

heir

child

s ac

adem

ic p

rogr

ess

tow

ards

ach

ieve

men

t of t

he c

onte

nt s

tand

ards

in E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge a

rts, m

athe

mat

ics,

and

sci

-en

ce w

ill b

e m

easu

red

usin

g th

e E

ssen

tial E

lem

ents

.· T

hey

unde

rsta

nd th

e gr

adua

tion

optio

ns fo

r the

ir ch

ild.

NO

TE: L

EA

s m

ay c

hoos

e to

aw

ard

dipl

omas

to s

tude

nts

who

qua

lify

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

f the

stu

dent

dem

onst

rate

s pr

ofici

ency

thro

ugh

thei

r cou

rsew

ork

usin

g m

odifi

ed p

rofic

ienc

y ex

pect

atio

ns fo

r sta

te-a

dopt

ed s

tand

ards

(CC

SS

, NG

SS

, etc

.).

LEA

s al

so h

ave

the

auth

ority

to a

war

d a

certi

ficat

e of

alte

rnat

e re

cogn

ition

of h

igh

scho

ol a

ccom

plis

hmen

t, in

acc

orda

nce

with

LE

A-d

efine

d po

licie

s an

d cr

iteria

(see

pag

e 13

of t

his

man

ual f

or m

ore

info

rmat

ion)

.· T

hey

have

bee

n in

form

ed o

f any

oth

er im

plic

atio

ns, i

nclu

ding

any

effe

cts

of lo

cal p

olic

ies

on th

e st

uden

ts e

duca

tion,

resu

lting

fro

m ta

king

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t.

88 NCEO

Stat

ePa

rent

Tex

t

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t and

Dip

lom

a R

equi

rem

ents

Th

e IE

P te

am s

houl

d be

aw

are

that

par

ticip

atio

n in

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t on

alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds m

eans

th

at th

at th

e st

uden

t is

part

icip

atin

g in

a c

urric

ulum

that

doe

s no

t lea

d to

a h

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma.

The

ach

ieve

men

t ex-

pect

atio

ns fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t are

not

the

sam

e as

the

expe

ctat

ions

for t

he g

ener

al a

sses

smen

t. S

tude

nts

mus

t ear

n un

its in

the

core

con

tent

as

a re

quire

men

t for

a h

igh

scho

ol d

iplo

ma.

IEP

team

s sh

ould

als

o be

aw

are

that

if a

stu

dent

with

out

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

parti

cipa

tes

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent,

the

resu

lts w

ill n

ot re

flect

wha

t the

stu

dent

kno

ws

and

can

do. T

he a

sses

smen

t res

ults

may

not

be

valid

and

the

stud

ent m

ay b

e co

nsid

ered

as

not p

artic

ipat

ing

in a

sses

smen

t for

st

ate

and

fede

ral a

ccou

ntab

ility

pur

pose

s.A

ND

Und

erst

and

that

par

ticip

atio

n in

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t mea

ns th

at m

y ch

ild is

par

ticip

atin

g in

a c

urric

ulum

that

will

NO

T le

ad to

a

high

sch

ool d

iplo

ma.

[Sig

natu

re a

nd d

ate]

Tenn

esse

eP

aren

t Inf

orm

ed o

n D

iplo

ma

with

sig

natu

re:

I und

erst

and

that

par

ticip

atio

n in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t mea

ns m

y st

uden

t is

parti

cipa

ting

in a

cur

ricul

um th

at m

ay h

inde

r hi

s/he

r abi

lity

to o

btai

n a

regu

lar d

iplo

ma.

I un

ders

tand

that

my

child

may

inst

ead

rece

ive

an a

ltern

ate

acad

emic

dip

lom

a,

occu

patio

nal d

iplo

ma,

and

/or s

peci

al e

duca

tion

dipl

oma.

Par

ent(s

)/Gua

rdia

n

Texa

sFo

r a s

tude

nt w

hom

the

AR

D c

omm

ittee

dee

ms

elig

ible

to ta

ke S

TAA

R A

ltern

ate

2, th

e co

mm

ittee

und

erst

ands

that

inst

ruct

iona

l an

d as

sess

men

t dec

isio

ns m

ade

may

impa

ct a

stu

dent

’s g

radu

atio

n pl

an in

hig

h sc

hool

, as

desc

ribed

in 1

9 Te

xas

Adm

inis

tra-

tive

Cod

e (T

AC

) §89

.107

0. A

ccor

ding

to 1

9 (T

AC

) §10

1.27

(b),

scho

ol d

istri

cts

are

requ

ired

to fo

llow

the

proc

edur

es s

peci

fied

in th

e ap

plic

able

test

adm

inis

tratio

n m

ater

ials

. If t

he A

RD

com

mitt

ee d

eter

min

es th

at th

e st

uden

t will

take

STA

AR

Alte

rnat

e 2,

ju

stifi

catio

n th

at is

bas

ed o

n th

e in

form

atio

n in

this

form

and

the

stud

ent’s

indi

vidu

al a

llow

able

acc

omm

odat

ions

mus

t be

docu

-m

ente

d in

the

stud

ent’s

IEP.

Virg

inia

[on

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t for

m w

ith p

lace

for p

aren

t sig

natu

re fo

llow

ing

crite

ria] I

s th

e st

uden

t wor

king

tow

ard

educ

atio

nal g

oals

ot

her t

han

thos

e pr

escr

ibed

for a

Mod

ified

Sta

ndar

d D

iplo

ma,

Sta

ndar

d D

iplo

ma,

or A

dvan

ced

Stu

dies

Dip

lom

a?

89NCEO

Stat

ePa

rent

Tex

t

Wes

t Virg

inia

Par

ent(s

) or g

uard

ian(

s) m

ust b

e in

volv

ed in

and

info

rmed

of a

ll de

cisi

ons

rega

rdin

g th

e us

e of

the

WVA

SA

and

mad

e aw

are

that

per

form

ance

mea

sure

s ar

e ba

sed

on th

e W

est V

irgin

ia A

ltern

ate

Aca

dem

ic A

chie

vem

ent S

tand

ards

. All

impl

icat

ions

of

asse

ssm

ent d

ecis

ions

mus

t be

care

fully

exp

lain

ed to

the

pare

nt a

nd th

e st

uden

t, in

clud

ing

that

the

stud

ent w

ill g

radu

ate

with

a

mod

ified

, or a

ltern

ate,

dip

lom

a. …

AN

DTh

e IE

P C

omm

ittee

use

d th

e ab

ove

eval

uatio

n da

ta a

naly

sis

and

disc

ussi

on to

det

erm

ine:

Th

e st

uden

t DO

ES m

eet t

he c

riter

ia to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e W

V A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent f

or s

tude

nts

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

dis-

abili

ties.

Th

e st

uden

t DO

ES N

OT

mee

t the

crit

eria

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

WV

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t for

stu

dent

s w

ith s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s. [P

aren

t/Gua

rdia

n si

gnat

ure]

Wis

cons

inU

nder

300

.160

, IE

P te

ams

mus

t inf

orm

par

ents

on

the

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n as

sess

men

ts b

ased

on

grad

e-le

vel a

cade

mic

ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds a

nd th

ose

base

d on

alte

rnat

e ac

adem

ic a

chie

vem

ent s

tand

ards

and

how

par

ticip

atin

g in

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t may

del

ay o

r oth

erw

ise

affe

ct th

e st

uden

t fro

m c

ompl

etin

g th

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r a re

gula

r hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a.

ES

SA

also

sta

tes

that

a s

tude

nt p

artic

ipat

ing

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent c

anno

t be

prec

lude

d fro

m a

ttem

ptin

g to

com

plet

e th

e re

quire

men

ts fo

r a re

gula

r hig

h sc

hool

dip

lom

a. S

ampl

e IE

P Fo

rm I-

7A in

clud

ed in

App

endi

ces

A, i

nclu

des

pare

nt n

otifi

catio

n as

pa

rt of

the

parti

cipa

tion

guid

elin

es fo

r par

ticip

atin

g in

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t.

90 NCEO

91NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

L

Men

tions

of E

nglis

h Le

arne

rs o

r La

ngua

ge in

Crit

eria

Evi

denc

e fo

r A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent

Stat

e

EL

Ass

essm

ents

Evi

-de

nce

for C

riter

ia

EL

Con

side

ratio

ns th

at M

ay In

-te

rfer

e in

Sho

win

g A

bilit

ies

(e.g

., ad

aptiv

e te

sts)

Lang

uage

Ass

ess-

men

ts E

vide

nce

for C

riter

ia

Use

IQ te

sts

in

Stud

ent’s

Firs

t La

ngua

geO

ther

AL

X

AR

XX

CA

X

DE

X*

DC

XX

FLX

GA

XX

INX

X

KY

XX

LAX

MD

XX

ME

XX

MI

X*

MO

XX

NY

X*

92 NCEO

Stat

e

EL

Ass

essm

ents

Evi

-de

nce

for C

riter

ia

EL

Con

side

ratio

ns th

at M

ay In

-te

rfer

e in

Sho

win

g A

bilit

ies

(e.g

., ad

aptiv

e te

sts)

Lang

uage

Ass

ess-

men

ts E

vide

nce

for C

riter

ia

Use

IQ te

sts

in

Stud

ent’s

Firs

t La

ngua

geO

ther

RI

XX

SC

XX

X*

SD

XX

X

TNX

X

WI

XX

Tota

l11

122

64

*See

not

es b

elow

.D

E O

ther

: Men

tions

one

yea

r exe

mpt

ions

from

taki

ng E

LA c

onte

nt a

sses

smen

ts fo

r new

ELs

.M

I Oth

er: S

tude

nts

rece

ivin

g on

ly E

L se

rvic

es a

re in

elig

ible

.N

Y O

ther

: Ens

ures

eac

h st

uden

t has

per

sona

l com

mun

icat

ion

syst

em, i

nclu

ding

nat

ive

lang

uage

, nee

ded

to s

how

pre

sent

leve

ls o

f per

form

ance

.S

C O

ther

: May

use

stu

dent

par

ticip

atio

n in

alte

rnat

e E

LP a

sses

smen

t as

evid

ence

.

93NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

M

Nat

ure

of E

nglis

h Le

arne

r M

entio

ns St

ate

Engl

ish

Lear

ner T

ext

Ala

bam

aC

riter

ion

1 (s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity)

are

as to

con

side

r:

Res

ults

of l

angu

age

asse

ssm

ents

incl

udin

g E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

rs (E

LL) l

angu

age

asse

ssm

ents

, if a

pplic

able

.

Ariz

ona

In s

ourc

es to

con

side

r:IE

P in

form

atio

n in

clud

ing:

•

Pre

sent

leve

ls o

f aca

dem

ic a

chie

vem

ent a

nd fu

nctio

nal p

erfo

rman

ce (P

LAA

FP),

goal

s, a

nd s

hort-

term

obj

ectiv

es.

• C

onsi

dera

tions

for s

tude

nts

with

indi

vidu

aliz

ed a

nd s

ubst

antia

l com

mun

icat

ion

need

s or

mod

es (f

rom

mul

tiple

dat

a so

urce

s)

• C

onsi

dera

tions

for s

tude

nts

who

may

be

lear

ning

Eng

lish

as a

sec

ond

or o

ther

lang

uage

(i.e

., E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arn-

ers)

that

may

inte

rfere

with

an

accu

rate

ass

essm

ent o

f his

or h

er a

cade

mic

, soc

ial,

or a

dapt

ive

abili

ties.

AN

D, I

n lis

t to

cons

ider

for C

riter

ion

1:R

esul

ts o

f lan

guag

e as

sess

men

ts in

clud

ing

Eng

lish

Lear

ner (

EL)

lang

uage

ass

essm

ents

if a

pplic

able

.

94 NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Ark

ansa

sIn

sou

rces

of i

nfor

mat

ion

for d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing:

IEP

info

rmat

ion

incl

udin

g:

• Con

side

ratio

ns fo

r stu

dent

s w

ho m

ay b

e le

arni

ng E

nglis

h as

a s

econ

d or

oth

er la

ngua

ge (i

.e.,

Eng

lish

lear

ners

) tha

t may

in

terfe

re w

ith a

n ac

cura

te a

sses

smen

t of h

is o

r her

aca

dem

ic, s

ocia

l, or

ada

ptiv

e ab

ilitie

s

In F

AQ

:3.

How

do

I kno

w if

the

Ark

ansa

s A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am is

app

ropr

iate

for a

n E

L st

uden

t with

an

IEP

who

se la

n-gu

age

profi

cien

cy m

akes

it d

ifficu

lt to

ass

ess

cont

ent k

now

ledg

e an

d sk

ills?

A

n E

L st

uden

t sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t if (

a) h

is/h

er in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

indi

cate

s a

sign

ifica

nt

cogn

itive

dis

abili

ty, a

nd (b

) he/

she

mee

ts th

e ot

her p

artic

ipat

ion

guid

elin

es fo

r the

Ark

ansa

s A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent P

rogr

am.

Ass

essm

ents

of a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

and

com

mun

icat

ion

shou

ld ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt li

ngui

stic

and

soc

iocu

ltura

l fac

tors

for v

alid

in

terp

reta

tion

of th

ese

asse

ssm

ents

, alo

ngsi

de th

e in

form

atio

n on

goa

ls a

nd in

stru

ctio

n in

the

stud

ent’s

IEP

used

to d

eter

-m

ine

wha

t may

or m

ay n

ot b

e a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. If

an

EL

stud

ent w

ith a

n IE

P do

es n

ot m

eet t

he c

riter

ia fo

r the

al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent,

he/s

he s

houl

d ta

ke th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent w

ith a

ccom

mod

atio

ns a

s ap

prop

riate

.

And

, lis

ted

cons

ider

atio

n fo

r crit

erio

n 1-

whe

ther

stu

dent

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y:

Res

ults

of l

angu

age

asse

ssm

ents

incl

udin

g E

nglis

h le

arne

r (E

L) la

ngua

ge a

sses

smen

ts if

app

licab

le.

Cal

iforn

iaIn

sou

rces

of i

nfor

mat

ion

to c

onsi

der:

EP

info

rmat

ion,

incl

udin

g:

• C

ircum

stan

ces

of a

stu

dent

who

may

be

lear

ning

Eng

lish

as a

sec

ond

or o

ther

lang

uage

(i.e

., an

Eng

lish

lear

ner)

, whi

ch

may

inte

rfere

with

an

accu

rate

ass

essm

ent o

f his

or h

er a

cade

mic

, soc

ial,

or a

dapt

ive

abili

ties

95NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Del

awar

eC

riter

ia fo

r Rec

eivi

ng a

n E

xem

ptio

n fro

m th

e D

eSS

A E

LA/L

itera

cy, S

AT R

eadi

ng o

r DeS

SA

-Alt

ELA

If

an E

L st

uden

t rec

eive

s an

exe

mpt

ion,

he

or s

he is

not

requ

ired

to ta

ke th

e D

eSS

A E

LA/L

itera

cy A

sses

smen

t, S

AT re

adin

g,

or th

e D

eSS

A-A

lt E

LA a

sses

smen

t. S

tude

nts

rece

ivin

g an

exe

mpt

ion

shou

ld h

ave

the

EL

exem

ptio

n fo

r ELA

ent

ered

into

D

eSS

A TI

DE

stu

dent

set

tings

. SAT

Exe

mpt

ions

are

ent

ered

thro

ugh

the

Dis

trict

Tes

t Coo

rdin

ator

s.

The

follo

win

g ar

e th

e cr

iteria

for r

ecei

ving

an

exem

ptio

n fro

m th

ese

lang

uage

arts

test

s:

1. T

he s

tude

nt h

as n

ot b

een

trans

ition

ed o

r exi

ted;

2. It

is th

e st

uden

t’s fi

rst y

ear o

f enr

ollm

ent i

n U

.S. s

choo

ls.

Dis

trict

of C

olum

-bi

aIn

list

of s

ourc

es to

con

side

r:IE

P in

form

atio

n in

clud

ing:

C

onsi

dera

tions

for s

tude

nts

who

may

be

lear

ning

Eng

lish

as a

sec

ond

or o

ther

lang

uage

(i.e

., E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

rs)

that

may

inte

rfere

with

an

accu

rate

ass

essm

ent o

f his

or h

er a

cade

mic

, soc

ial,

or a

dapt

ive

abili

ties.

A

ND

In li

st fo

r to

cons

ider

for c

riter

ion

1:R

esul

ts o

f lan

guag

e as

sess

men

ts in

clud

ing

Eng

lish

lear

ner (

EL)

lang

uage

ass

essm

ents

if a

pplic

able

.

Flor

ida

In li

st to

con

side

r for

det

erm

inin

g if

stud

ent h

as a

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y:la

ngua

ge a

sses

smen

ts

Geo

rgia

In li

st o

f con

side

ratio

ns fo

r crit

erio

n 1:

Res

ults

of l

angu

age

asse

ssm

ents

incl

udin

g E

nglis

h Le

arne

r (E

L) a

sses

smen

ts, i

f app

licab

le

Haw

aii

Haw

aii S

tate

Ass

essm

ent-

Alte

rnat

e(H

SA

-Alt)

Par

ticip

atio

n G

uide

lines

Four

crit

eria

form

the

basi

s fo

r alte

rnat

e te

st p

artic

ipat

ion

in H

awai

i. A

stud

ent w

ith a

n IE

P m

ust m

eet a

ll fo

ur c

riter

ia in

ord

er

to b

e co

nsid

ered

for t

he H

SA

-Alt

or th

e W

IDA

Alte

rnat

e A

CC

ES

S fo

r ELL

s. T

his

evid

ence

-bas

ed c

heck

list s

houl

d be

use

d by

IE

P te

ams

whe

n m

akin

g an

alte

rnat

e te

st s

tude

nt id

entifi

catio

n de

cisi

on fo

r eith

er th

e H

SA

-Alt

or th

e W

IDA

Alte

rnat

e A

C-

CE

SS

for E

LLs.

96 NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Indi

ana

3.H

ow d

o I k

now

if th

e In

dian

a A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ent i

s ap

prop

riate

for a

n E

LL w

ith a

n In

divi

dual

Edu

catio

n P

lan

(IEP

) w

hose

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy

mak

es it

diffi

cult

to a

sses

s co

nten

t kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s?A

n E

LL s

houl

d be

con

side

red

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

f (a)

his

/her

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng in

dica

tes

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

-ni

tive

disa

bilit

y us

ing

asse

ssm

ents

in h

is/h

er h

ome

lang

uage

as

appr

opria

te, a

nd (b

) he/

she

mee

ts th

e ot

her p

artic

ipat

ion

guid

elin

es fo

r the

Indi

ana

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t. A

sses

smen

ts o

f ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

n sh

ould

take

into

ac

coun

t lin

guis

tic a

nd s

ocio

cultu

ral f

acto

rs fo

r val

id in

terp

reta

tion

of th

ese

asse

ssm

ents

, alo

ngsi

de th

e in

form

atio

n on

goa

ls

and

inst

ruct

ion

in th

e st

uden

t’s IE

P us

ed to

det

erm

ine

wha

t may

or m

ay n

ot b

e a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. If

an

ELL

with

an

IEP

does

not

mee

t the

crit

eria

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent,

he/s

he s

houl

d ta

ke th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent w

ith a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns a

s ap

prop

riate

.A

ND

In fl

ow c

hart

list o

f sou

rces

to c

onsi

der:

Con

side

r The

se: R

esul

ts o

f Ind

ivid

ual C

ogni

tive

Abi

lity

Test

, Ada

ptiv

e B

ehav

ior S

kills

Ass

essm

ent,

indi

vidu

al/g

roup

-adm

in-

iste

red

achi

evem

ent t

ests

, and

dis

trict

-wid

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ents

, and

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ner (

ELL

) lan

guag

e as

sess

-m

ents

, if a

pplic

able

Ken

tuck

yIn

list

of s

ourc

es to

con

side

r:IE

P in

form

atio

n in

clud

ing:

- C

onsi

dera

tions

for s

tude

nts

who

may

be

lear

ning

Eng

lish

as a

sec

ond

or o

ther

lang

uage

(i.e

., E

nglis

h Le

arne

rs) t

hat m

ay

inte

rfere

with

an

accu

rate

ass

essm

ent o

f his

or h

er a

cade

mic

, soc

ial,

or a

dapt

ive

abili

ties.

A

ND

3. H

ow d

o I k

now

if th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s ap

prop

riate

for a

n E

nglis

h Le

arne

r (E

L) w

ith a

n IE

P w

hose

lang

uage

pro

fi-ci

ency

mak

es it

diffi

cult

to a

sses

s co

nten

t kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s?A

n E

L st

uden

t sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t if (

a) h

is/h

er in

telle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

indi

cate

s a

sign

ifica

nt

cogn

itive

dis

abili

ty u

sing

ass

essm

ents

in h

is/h

er h

ome

lang

uage

as

appr

opria

te, a

nd (b

) he/

she

mee

ts th

e ot

her p

artic

ipa-

tion

guid

elin

es fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t. A

sses

smen

ts o

f ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

n sh

ould

take

into

acc

ount

lin

guis

tic a

nd s

ocio

cultu

ral f

acto

rs fo

r val

id in

terp

reta

tion

of th

ese

asse

ssm

ents

, alo

ngsi

de th

e in

form

atio

n on

goa

ls a

nd

inst

ruct

ion

in th

e st

uden

t’s IE

P us

ed to

det

erm

ine

wha

t may

or m

ay n

ot b

e a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y. If

an

EL

stud

ent

with

an

IEP

does

not

mee

t the

crit

eria

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent,

he/s

he s

houl

d ta

ke th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent w

ith a

ccom

-m

odat

ions

as

appr

opria

te.

Loui

sian

aIn

list

to c

onsi

der f

or C

riter

ion

1:R

esul

ts o

f lan

guag

e as

sess

men

ts in

clud

ing

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

ner (

ELL

) lan

guag

e as

sess

men

ts if

app

licab

le

97NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Mai

neIn

list

to c

onsi

der:

IEP

info

rmat

ion

incl

udin

g:

▪ C

onsi

dera

tions

for s

tude

nts

who

may

be

lear

ning

Eng

lish

as a

sec

ond

or o

ther

lang

uage

(i.e

., E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

rs)

that

may

inte

rfere

with

an

accu

rate

ass

essm

ent o

f his

or h

er a

cade

mic

, soc

ial,

or a

dapt

ive

abili

ties.

A

ND

How

do

I kno

w if

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t is

appr

opria

te fo

r an

Eng

lish

Lear

ner w

ith a

n IE

P w

hose

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy

mak

es it

diffi

cult

to a

sses

s co

nten

t kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s?

An

Eng

lish

Lear

ner s

houl

d be

con

side

red

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

f (a)

his

/her

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng in

dica

tes

a si

g-ni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

usin

g as

sess

men

ts in

his

/her

hom

e la

ngua

ge a

s ap

prop

riate

, and

(b) h

e/sh

e m

eets

the

alte

rnat

e pa

rtici

patio

n gu

idel

ines

. Ass

essm

ents

of a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

and

com

mun

icat

ion

shou

ld ta

ke in

to a

ccou

nt li

ngui

stic

and

soc

io-

cultu

ral f

acto

rs fo

r val

id in

terp

reta

tion

of th

ese

asse

ssm

ents

. Inf

orm

atio

n re

gard

ing

goal

s an

d in

stru

ctio

n in

the

stud

ent’s

IEP

may

be

used

to d

eter

min

e w

hat m

ay o

r may

not

be

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

If a

n E

LL w

ith a

n IE

P do

es n

ot m

eet t

he

crite

ria fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t, he

/she

sho

uld

take

the

gene

ral a

sses

smen

t with

acc

omm

odat

ions

as

appr

opria

te.

Mar

ylan

dTh

e IE

P te

am m

ust a

nnua

lly c

onsi

der t

he fo

llow

ing

info

rmat

ion

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er th

e M

aryl

and

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts

are

appr

opria

te fo

r an

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt: …

Con

side

ratio

n fo

r stu

dent

s w

ho m

ay b

e le

arni

ng E

nglis

h as

a s

econ

d or

oth

er la

ngua

ge (e

.g.,

Eng

lish

Lear

ners

) tha

t may

in

terfe

re w

ith a

n ac

cura

te a

sses

smen

t of h

is o

r her

aca

dem

ic, s

ocia

l, or

ada

ptiv

e sk

ills.

A

ND

3. H

ow d

o I k

now

if th

e M

aryl

and

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts a

re a

ppro

pria

te fo

r an

Eng

lish

Lear

ner (

EL)

with

an

IEP

who

se

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy

mak

es it

diffi

cult

to a

sses

s co

nten

t kno

wle

dge

and

skill

s?

An

Eng

lish

Lear

ner s

houl

d be

con

side

red

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

f his

/her

inte

llect

ual f

unct

ioni

ng in

dica

tes

a si

gnifi

-ca

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y us

ing

asse

ssm

ents

in h

is/h

er s

poke

n la

ngua

ge a

s ap

prop

riate

and

he/

she

mee

ts th

e ot

her p

artic

ipa-

tion

crite

ria fo

r the

Mar

ylan

d A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ents

. Ass

essm

ents

of a

dapt

ive

beha

vior

and

com

mun

icat

ion

shou

ld ta

ke in

to

acco

unt l

ingu

istic

and

soc

iocu

ltura

l fac

tors

for v

alid

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

thes

e as

sess

men

ts, a

long

side

pro

gres

s on

goa

ls a

nd

obje

ctiv

es in

the

stud

ent’s

IEP

used

to d

eter

min

e w

hat m

ay o

r may

not

be

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

If a

n E

L w

ith a

n IE

P do

es n

ot m

eet t

he c

riter

ia fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts, h

e/sh

e sh

ould

take

the

gene

ral a

sses

smen

ts w

ith o

r with

out

acco

mm

odat

ions

as

appr

opria

te. E

L st

atus

alo

ne is

not

app

ropr

iate

to c

onsi

der a

s cr

iteria

for p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ents

.

98 NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Mic

higa

nTo

p of

alte

rnat

e co

nten

t flow

cha

rt: D

oes

the

stud

ent h

ave,

or f

unct

ion

as if

he/

she

has

a S

IGN

IFIC

AN

T, c

ogni

tive

impa

irmen

t?N

o: s

tude

nt s

houl

d ta

ke M

-STE

P/M

ME

Yes:

Doe

s th

e st

uden

t req

uire

an

Eng

lish

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy

asse

ssm

ent?

Yes:

follo

w th

e M

DE

gui

delin

es fo

r par

ticip

atio

n in

Alte

rnat

e A

CC

ES

S fo

r ELL

sA

ND

Are

The

re S

tude

nts

Who

Sho

uld

NO

T Ta

ke M

I-Acc

ess?

(con

tinue

d)

Stu

dent

s w

ho o

nly

rece

ive

Eng

lish

Lear

ner s

ervi

ces

or a

re n

ot y

et fo

und

elig

ible

for s

peci

al e

duca

tion

serv

ices

, suc

h as

stu

-de

nts

parti

cipa

ting

in a

tier

II in

terv

entio

n in

a m

ulti-

tiere

d sy

stem

of s

uppo

rt

Min

neso

taE

nglis

h la

ngua

ge p

rofic

ienc

y ac

coun

tabi

lity

asse

ssm

ents

: For

Eng

lish

lear

ners

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies,

it is

rec-

omm

ende

d th

at th

e IE

P te

am c

olla

bora

tes

with

EL

staf

f to

dete

rmin

e if

the

Alte

rnat

e A

CC

ES

S fo

r ELL

s is

the

mos

t app

ropr

i-at

e E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge p

rofic

ienc

y ac

coun

tabi

lity

asse

ssm

ent i

n pl

ace

of th

e A

CC

ES

S. A

cces

s in

form

atio

n on

the

Alte

rnat

e A

CC

ES

S fo

r ELL

s pa

rtici

patio

n cr

iteria

(WID

A >

Ass

ess

> A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

for E

LLs)

.

Mis

sour

iW

hile

IDE

A do

es n

ot p

rovi

de a

ny g

uida

nce

on d

eter

min

ing

the

mos

t sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies,

it d

oes

stat

e, u

nder

S

ectio

n 30

0.30

4(3)

(c)(

1) “A

sses

smen

ts a

nd o

ther

eva

luat

ion

mat

eria

ls u

sed

to a

sses

s a

child

und

er th

is p

art—

(i) a

re s

e-le

cted

and

adm

inis

tere

d so

as

not t

o be

dis

crim

inat

ory

on a

raci

al o

r cul

tura

l bas

is; (

ii) a

re p

rovi

ded

and

adm

inis

tere

d in

the

child

’s n

ativ

e la

ngua

ge o

r oth

er m

ode

of c

omm

unic

atio

n an

d in

the

form

mos

t lik

ely

to y

ield

acc

urat

e in

form

atio

n on

wha

t th

e ch

ild k

now

s an

d ca

n do

aca

dem

ical

ly, d

evel

opm

enta

lly, a

nd fu

nctio

nally

, unl

ess

it is

cle

arly

not

feas

ible

to s

o pr

ovid

e or

ad

min

iste

r; (ii

i) ar

e us

ed fo

r the

pur

pose

s fo

r whi

ch th

e as

sess

men

ts o

r mea

sure

s ar

e va

lid a

nd re

liabl

e; (i

v) a

re a

dmin

is-

tere

d by

trai

ned

and

know

ledg

eabl

e pe

rson

nel;

and

(v) a

re a

dmin

iste

red

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith a

ny in

stru

ctio

ns p

rovi

ded

by th

e pr

oduc

er o

f the

ass

essm

ents

.”

New

Ham

pshi

re5,

Exe

mpt

ion

from

the

ELA

(and

writ

ing)

por

tion

ON

LY o

f the

sta

tew

ide

asse

ssm

ent s

yste

m fo

r ELL

stu

dent

s w

ho h

ave

been

in

the

coun

try 1

2 m

onth

s or

less

.

New

Yor

kTh

e C

SE

ens

ures

that

eac

h st

uden

t has

a p

erso

naliz

ed s

yste

m o

f com

mun

icat

ion

that

add

ress

es h

is/h

er n

eeds

rega

rdin

g di

sabi

lity,

cul

ture

, and

nat

ive

lang

uage

so

the

stud

ent c

an d

emon

stra

te h

is/h

er p

rese

nt le

vel o

f per

form

ance

.

99NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Rho

de Is

land

Ass

essm

ent d

ata

and

evid

ence

:…

.· l

angu

age

asse

ssm

ents

like

AC

CE

SS

for E

LLs

or A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

for E

LLs

AN

DIE

P in

form

atio

n, in

clud

ing:

· Con

side

ratio

ns fo

r stu

dent

s w

ho m

ay b

e le

arni

ng E

nglis

h as

a s

econ

d or

oth

er la

ngua

ge(i.

e., E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

rs).

AN

DE

nglis

h La

ngua

ge L

earn

er (E

L) s

tatu

s. It

is im

porta

nt to

und

erst

and

that

a s

tude

nt’s

abi

lity

to le

arn

and

thei

r kno

wle

dge

of

Eng

lish

are

not c

onne

cted

. How

wel

l a s

tude

nt u

nder

stan

ds a

nd s

peak

s E

nglis

h ha

s an

impa

ct o

n hi

s/he

r abi

lity

to le

arn;

ho

wev

er it

doe

s no

t ind

icat

e a

lear

ning

dis

abili

ty. A

ltern

ativ

e m

etho

ds o

f und

erst

andi

ng w

hat a

stu

dent

kno

ws

and

can

do

may

nee

d to

be

inve

stig

ated

dep

endi

ng o

n th

e st

uden

t’s E

nglis

h pr

ofici

ency

leve

l. P

leas

e co

ntac

t you

r dis

trict

EL

Dire

ctor

for

optio

ns

100 NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Info

rmat

ion

the

IEP

Team

can

use

to d

eter

min

e if

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t is

appr

opria

te fo

r an

indi

vidu

al s

tude

nt

The

IEP

team

sho

uld

revi

ew a

nd d

iscu

ss m

ultip

le s

ourc

es o

f inf

orm

atio

n. S

ome

sour

ces

that

the

team

may

con

side

r rev

iew

-in

g in

clud

e: p

sych

olog

ical

eva

luat

ion

repo

rts, r

esul

ts o

f ind

ivid

ual c

ogni

tive

abili

ty te

sts,

ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or s

kills

dat

a, re

sults

of

indi

vidu

al o

r gro

up a

dmin

iste

red

achi

evem

ent a

sses

smen

ts, d

istri

ct-w

ide

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts, i

ndiv

idua

l rea

ding

as-

sess

men

ts, fi

ndin

gs o

f com

mun

icat

ion

or la

ngua

ge p

rofic

ienc

y as

sess

men

ts, t

each

er c

olle

cted

dat

a fro

m c

lass

room

obs

er-

vatio

ns, p

rogr

ess

mon

itorin

g da

ta, a

nd IE

Ps.

AN

D

IEP

info

rmat

ion

incl

udin

g Th

e te

am s

houl

d co

nsid

er:&

spec

ial c

onsi

dera

tions

rela

ted

to c

omm

unic

atio

n or

Eng

lish

lang

uage

le

arne

rs

AN

D

… te

ache

r col

lect

ed d

ata

and

wor

k sa

mpl

es fr

om c

lass

room

and

com

mun

ity-b

ased

inst

ruct

ion,

if a

pplic

able

. Alth

ough

ther

e sh

ould

be

evid

ence

that

a s

tude

nt w

ho p

artic

ipat

es in

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t rec

eive

s ex

tens

ive

inst

ruct

ion

in fu

nctio

nal

curr

icul

um a

nd d

aily

livi

ng s

kills

, onl

y ac

adem

ic in

stru

ctio

n or

Eng

lish

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy

is a

sses

sed

with

alte

rnat

e as

-se

ssm

ent.

… re

sults

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge p

rofic

ienc

y as

sess

men

ts if

the

stud

ent i

s al

so c

lass

ified

as

an E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

r (E

LL).

… A

ppen

dix

C R

evie

w o

f Elig

ibili

ty fo

r Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t Che

cklis

t for

Stu

dent

s w

ho a

re E

nglis

h La

ngua

ge L

earn

ers

with

S

igni

fican

t Cog

nitiv

e D

isab

ilitie

s m

ay b

e us

ed w

ith s

tude

nts

who

are

ELL

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies,

age

s 6

and

7.

… N

ote:

Stu

dent

s w

ho a

re c

lass

ified

as

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Lea

rner

s (E

LLs)

with

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

litie

s pa

rtici

pate

in a

n E

ng-

lish

lang

uage

Pro

ficie

ncy

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

t beg

inni

ng in

firs

t gra

de o

r age

six

and

con

tinue

unt

il ex

ited.

101NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Sou

th D

akot

aA

sses

smen

t dat

a an

d ev

iden

ce: o

Pas

t sta

te a

sses

smen

ts to

com

pare

to c

lass

room

wor

k …

Lan

guag

e as

sess

men

ts li

ke A

CC

ES

S fo

r ELL

s or

Alte

rnat

e A

CC

ES

S fo

r ELL

s

IEP

info

rmat

ion

incl

udin

g: o

Pre

sent

leve

ls o

f aca

dem

ic a

chie

vem

ent a

nd fu

nctio

nal p

erfo

rman

ce, g

oals

, and

sho

rt-te

rm

obje

ctiv

es o

r pos

t-sch

ool o

utco

mes

from

the

IEP

…o

Con

side

ratio

ns fo

r stu

dent

s w

ho m

ay b

e le

arni

ng E

nglis

h as

a s

econ

d or

oth

er la

ngua

ge (i

.e.,

Eng

lish

lang

uage

lear

n-er

s)

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Lea

rner

(ELL

) sta

tus:

It is

impo

rtant

to u

nder

stan

d th

at a

stu

dent

’s a

bilit

y an

d th

eir k

now

ledg

e of

Eng

lish

are

not c

onne

cted

. How

wel

l a s

tude

nt u

nder

stan

ds a

nd s

peak

s E

nglis

h ha

s an

impa

ct o

n th

eir a

bilit

y to

lear

n; h

owev

er it

do

es n

ot in

dica

te a

lear

ning

dis

abili

ty. A

ltern

ate

met

hods

of u

nder

stan

ding

wha

t a s

tude

nt k

now

s an

d ca

n do

may

nee

d to

be

inve

stig

ated

dep

endi

ng o

n th

e st

uden

t’s E

nglis

h pr

ofici

ency

leve

l. P

leas

e co

ntac

t you

r dis

trict

ELL

Dire

ctor

for o

ptio

ns.

…re

sults

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge p

rofic

ienc

y as

sess

men

ts if

the

stud

ent i

s al

so c

lass

ified

as

an E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

r (E

LL).

3. H

ow d

o I k

now

if th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

s ap

prop

riate

for a

n E

LL w

ith a

n IE

P w

hose

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy

mak

es it

dif-

ficul

t to

asse

ss c

onte

nt k

now

ledg

e an

d sk

ills?

A

n E

LL s

houl

d be

con

side

red

for t

he a

ltern

ate

asse

ssm

ent i

f (a)

thei

r int

elle

ctua

l fun

ctio

ning

indi

cate

s a

sign

ifica

nt c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y us

ing

asse

ssm

ents

in th

eir h

ome

lang

uage

as

appr

opria

te, a

nd (b

) the

y m

eet t

he o

ther

par

ticip

atio

n gu

idel

ines

for

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t. A

sses

smen

ts o

f ada

ptiv

e be

havi

or a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

n sh

ould

take

into

acc

ount

ling

uist

ic a

nd s

o-ci

ocul

tura

l fac

tors

for v

alid

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

thes

e as

sess

men

ts, a

long

side

the

info

rmat

ion

on g

oals

and

inst

ruct

ion

in th

e st

u-de

nt’s

IEP

used

to d

eter

min

e w

hat m

ay o

r may

not

be

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity.

If a

n E

LL w

ith a

n IE

P do

es n

ot m

eet

the

crite

ria fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t, he

/she

sho

uld

take

the

gene

ral a

sses

smen

t with

acc

omm

odat

ions

as

appr

opria

te.

Tenn

esse

e[in

list

for C

riter

ion

3 co

nsid

erat

ions

for t

eam

s]

Doe

s th

e IE

P co

ntai

n su

ffici

ent e

vide

nce

and

data

that

a s

tude

nt re

quire

s su

bsta

ntia

l acc

omm

odat

ions

, mod

ifica

tions

, ser

-vi

ces,

and

sup

ports

? …

- Com

mun

icat

ion

need

s or

flue

nt u

se o

f an

augm

enta

tive,

ass

istiv

e co

mm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

(Prim

ary

lang

uage

flue

ncy

and

skill

leve

l (E

nglis

h le

arne

r) a

nd th

e im

pact

of l

earn

ing

a se

cond

lang

uage

on

the

stud

ent’s

per

form

ance

.) A

ND

In li

st o

f sou

rces

of e

vide

nce

Res

ults

of l

angu

age

asse

ssm

ents

incl

udin

g E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

rs (E

L) la

ngua

ge a

sses

smen

ts, i

f app

licab

le

102 NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Texa

sE

LIG

IBIL

ITY

CR

ITE

RIA

If th

e ad

mis

sion

, rev

iew

, and

dis

mis

sal (

AR

D) c

omm

ittee

has

pre

viou

sly

dete

rmin

ed th

at a

stu

dent

mee

ts th

e el

igib

ility

cr

iteria

for S

TAA

R A

ltern

ate

2 an

d TE

LPA

S A

ltern

ate

and

the

stud

ent i

s be

ing

cons

ider

ed fo

r a N

o A

uthe

ntic

Aca

dem

ic

Res

pons

e (N

AA

R) d

esig

natio

n, th

e A

RD

com

mitt

ee m

ust d

iscu

ss th

e el

igib

ility

crit

eria

bel

ow. T

he a

nsw

er to

at l

east

one

of

the

two

NA

AR

Elig

ibili

ty C

riter

ia q

uest

ions

list

ed b

elow

mus

t be

YE

S. A

dditi

onal

ly th

e A

RD

com

mitt

ee m

ust d

iscu

ss th

e tw

o as

sura

nces

. Bot

h as

sura

nces

mus

t be

initi

aled

by

dist

rict p

erso

nnel

in o

rder

for t

he s

tude

nt to

rece

ive

a N

AA

R d

esig

natio

n.

Stu

dent

s qu

alify

ing

for N

AA

R w

ill n

ot b

e re

quire

d to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e ad

min

istra

tion

of S

TAA

R A

ltern

ate

2 an

d TE

LPA

S

Alte

rnat

e fo

r any

cou

rse,

sub

ject

, or d

omai

n. A

sco

re c

ode

of ‘N

’ mus

t be

reco

rded

for a

ll te

sts

the

stud

ent w

ould

hav

e ta

ken.

AN

D

ELI

GIB

ILIT

Y C

RIT

ER

IAIf

the

adm

issi

on, r

evie

w, a

nd d

ism

issa

l (A

RD

) com

mitt

ee h

as p

revi

ousl

y de

term

ined

that

a s

tude

nt m

eets

the

elig

ibili

ty c

rite-

ria fo

r STA

AR

Alte

rnat

e 2

and

TELP

AS

Alte

rnat

e an

d th

e st

uden

t is

bein

g co

nsid

ered

for a

med

ical

exc

eptio

n de

sign

atio

n,

the

AR

D c

omm

ittee

, in

conj

unct

ion

with

LPA

C a

s ne

cess

ary,

mus

t dis

cuss

the

elig

ibili

ty c

riter

ia b

elow

. At l

east

one

of t

he

spec

ific

med

ical

con

ditio

ns li

sted

bel

ow s

houl

d de

scrib

e th

e m

edic

al c

ondi

tion

of th

e st

uden

t. A

dditi

onal

ly th

e A

RD

com

mit-

tee

mus

t dis

cuss

the

thre

e as

sura

nces

. All

of th

ese

assu

ranc

es m

ust b

e in

itial

ed b

y di

stric

t per

sonn

el in

ord

er fo

r the

stu

dent

to

rece

ive

a m

edic

al e

xcep

tion.

Stu

dent

s qu

alify

ing

for a

med

ical

exc

eptio

n w

ill n

ot b

e re

quire

d to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e ad

min

-is

tratio

n of

STA

AR

Alte

rnat

e 2

and

TELP

AS

Alte

rnat

e fo

r any

cou

rse,

sub

ject

, or d

omai

n fo

r whi

ch th

ey a

re e

nrol

led

in th

e cu

rren

t yea

r. A

scor

e co

de o

f ‘M

’ mus

t be

reco

rded

for a

ll te

sts

the

stud

ent w

ould

hav

e ta

ken.

Ass

essm

ent d

ecis

ions

mus

t be

com

mun

icat

ed to

nec

essa

ry p

erso

nnel

.

103NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Was

hing

ton

Fina

lly, w

hen

an IE

P te

am d

eter

min

es th

at th

e st

uden

t sho

uld

take

an

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t, th

e te

am m

ust d

ocum

ent i

n th

e IE

P: 1

) why

the

stud

ent c

anno

t par

ticip

ate

in th

e re

gula

r ass

essm

ent,

and

2) w

hy th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent s

elec

ted

(i.e.

, W

A-A

IM a

nd W

IDA

Alte

rnat

e A

CC

ES

S) i

s ap

prop

riate

to a

sses

s th

e st

uden

t’s a

cade

mic

, or l

angu

age

if el

igib

le, p

erfo

rman

ce.

AN

Dla

ck o

f acc

ess

to q

ualit

y in

stru

ctio

n in

cor

e st

anda

rds

soci

al, c

ultu

ral,

lingu

istic

, or e

cono

mic

diff

eren

ces

for t

he W

A-A

IM;

how

ever

cul

tura

l and

ling

uist

ic d

iffer

ence

s sh

ould

not

be

used

as

sole

exc

lusi

onar

y fa

ctor

s fo

r elig

ibili

ty to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e W

IDA

Alte

rnat

e A

CC

ES

S N

OTE

phr

asin

g of

Soc

ial a

nd li

ngui

stic

fact

ors

incl

ude

WID

A co

nsid

erat

ion:

soc

ial,

cultu

ral,

lingu

is-

tic, o

r eco

nom

ic d

iffer

ence

s fo

r the

WA

-AIM

; how

ever

cul

tura

l and

ling

uist

ic d

iffer

ence

s sh

ould

not

be

used

as

sole

exc

lu-

sion

ary

fact

ors

for e

ligib

ility

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

A

ND

If a

stud

ent m

eets

the

guid

elin

es to

rece

ive

inst

ruct

ion

on a

ltern

ate

acad

emic

or l

angu

age

achi

evem

ent s

tand

ards

and

take

s al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ents

bas

ed u

pon

thos

e al

tern

ate

achi

evem

ent s

tand

ards

, the

n al

l tes

ted

acad

emic

con

tent

, lan

guag

e, o

r ot

her s

tate

-man

date

d as

sess

men

ts a

reas

requ

ired

for t

he s

tude

nt’s

enr

olle

d gr

ade

leve

l, sh

ould

be

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts.

AN

DFi

gure

1 a

nd F

igur

e 2

on th

e fo

llow

ing

page

s ou

tline

the

parti

cipa

tion

crite

ria a

nd d

ecis

ion-

mak

ing

proc

ess

for t

he W

A-A

IM

and

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

. The

re is

a d

iffer

ence

in te

rms

of p

artic

ipat

ion

crite

ria b

etw

een

Figu

re 1

(WA

-AIM

) and

Fig

ure

2 (W

IDA

). Th

e di

ffere

nce

is in

the

list o

f exc

lusi

onar

y fa

ctor

s in

the

boxe

s at

the

botto

m o

f pag

e fo

r bot

h ch

arts

. The

mai

n pu

rpos

es fo

r the

se li

sts

of e

xclu

sion

ary

crite

ria a

re to

: (1)

rais

e th

e pr

obab

ility

that

a s

tude

nt tr

uly

has

a si

gnifi

cant

cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

and

(2) e

nsur

e th

at s

tude

nts

are

not i

napp

ropr

iate

ly in

clud

ed o

r exc

lude

d fro

m re

ceiv

ing

an a

ppro

pria

te e

duca

tion

and/

or p

artic

ipat

ing

in th

e ap

prop

riate

sta

tew

ide

asse

ssm

ent.

Figu

re 1

for t

he W

A-A

IM s

how

s th

at “l

ingu

istic

” and

“cul

ture

” are

two

fact

ors

an IE

P te

am m

ay n

ot u

se a

s th

e pr

imar

y ba

sis

for a

stu

dent

par

ticip

atin

g in

the

WA

-AIM

, but

Fig

ure

2 fo

r the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

doe

s no

t inc

lude

eith

er o

f the

se a

s ex

clus

iona

ry fa

ctor

s. “C

ultu

re” a

nd “l

ingu

istic

” fac

tors

incl

ude,

but

are

not

lim

ited

to, r

ecen

t im

mig

ratio

n fro

m a

noth

er c

ount

ry;

educ

atio

n di

srup

ted

durin

g an

imm

igra

tion

expe

rienc

e; a

ccul

tura

tion

expe

rienc

es in

the

Uni

ted

Sta

tes;

cul

tura

l val

ues

whi

ch

are

dist

inct

ly d

iffer

ent f

rom

thos

e of

the

maj

ority

cul

ture

; bili

ngua

l/bic

ultu

ral b

ackg

roun

d of

the

fam

ily; a

nd th

e in

fluen

ce o

f la

ngua

ge a

nd d

iale

ct o

n sc

hool

per

form

ance

. S

tude

nts

with

sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

ies

ofte

n ha

ve o

ne o

r bot

h of

thes

e fa

ctor

s th

at m

ay c

ontri

bute

to a

cade

mic

and

le

arni

ng d

ifficu

lties

; how

ever

, the

IEP

team

mus

t rul

e ou

t the

se fa

ctor

s as

the

prim

ary

caus

e of

a s

tude

nt’s

aca

dem

ic a

nd

lear

ning

diffi

culti

es to

det

erm

ine

whe

ther

the

stud

ent i

s el

igib

le to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e W

A-A

IM. T

he fu

ndam

enta

l prin

cipl

e un

derly

ing

this

rule

is th

at a

stu

dent

sho

uld

not b

e re

gard

ed a

s ha

ving

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

if (1

) he

or s

he h

as

not b

een

give

n su

ffici

ent a

nd a

ppro

pria

te le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties

or (2

) the

stu

dent

’s a

cade

mic

stru

ggle

s ar

e pr

imar

ily d

ue to

fa

ctor

s ot

her t

han

a di

sabi

lity

such

as

lang

uage

or c

ultu

re. T

his

sam

e “r

ule”

doe

s no

t app

ly to

the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

be

caus

e:

in o

rder

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

, the

stu

dent

mus

t firs

t be

a st

uden

t with

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity

and

elig

ible

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

WA

-AIM

(IE

P te

am w

ill n

eed

to u

se p

rofe

ssio

nal j

udgm

ent f

or s

tude

nts

in g

rade

s K

–2),

and

the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

is a

test

to a

sses

s th

e la

ngua

ge p

rofic

ienc

y of

an

EL

with

a s

igni

fican

t cog

nitiv

e di

sabi

lity;

con

-se

quen

tly, t

he s

tude

nt’s

nat

ive

lang

uage

or c

ultu

re s

houl

d no

t exc

lude

the

stud

ent f

rom

par

ticip

atio

n in

the

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

.

104 NCEO

Stat

eEn

glis

h Le

arne

r Tex

t

Was

hing

ton

(con

tinue

d)Fi

gure

3 s

how

s th

e se

quen

ce o

f dec

isio

ns m

ade

by IE

P te

ams

whe

n de

term

inin

g w

heth

er a

stu

dent

sho

uld

parti

cipa

te in

al-

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent.

If a

stud

ent m

eets

the

guid

elin

es to

rece

ive

inst

ruct

ion

on a

ltern

ate

acad

emic

or l

angu

age

achi

evem

ent

stan

dard

s an

d ta

kes

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

ts b

ased

upo

n th

ose

alte

rnat

e ac

hiev

emen

t sta

ndar

ds, t

hen

all t

este

d ac

adem

ic

cont

ent,

lang

uage

, or o

ther

sta

te-m

anda

ted

asse

ssm

ents

are

as re

quire

d fo

r the

stu

dent

’s e

nrol

led

grad

e le

vel,

shou

ld b

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ents

. Fi

nally

, whe

n an

IEP

team

det

erm

ines

that

the

stud

ent s

houl

d ta

ke a

n al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent,

the

team

mus

t doc

umen

t in

the

IEP

: 1)

why

the

stud

ent c

anno

t par

ticip

ate

in th

e re

gula

r ass

essm

ent,

and

2) w

hy th

e al

tern

ate

asse

ssm

ent s

elec

ted

(i.e.

, WA

-AIM

and

WID

A A

ltern

ate

AC

CE

SS

) is

appr

opria

te to

ass

ess

the

stud

ent’s

ac

adem

ic, o

r lan

guag

e if

elig

ible

,

Wis

cons

inIn

list

of s

ourc

es to

con

side

r:

Res

ults

of E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge p

rofic

ienc

y as

sess

men

ts if

the

stud

ent i

s al

so c

lass

ified

as

an E

nglis

h Le

arne

r (E

L).

… Spe

cial

con

side

ratio

ns re

late

d to

com

mun

icat

ion

or E

nglis

h la

ngua

ge le

arne

rs.

AN

D

Dis

prop

ortio

nalit

y-

Add

ress

any

dis

prop

ortio

nalit

y in

the

perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s in

any

sub

grou

p ta

king

the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t. 20

0.6(

c)(4

)(ii

i)(B

). D

istri

cts

need

to a

ssur

e th

at th

ey h

ave

revi

ewed

thei

r stu

dent

par

ticip

atio

n da

ta fo

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t and

ha

ve d

isag

greg

ated

the

data

by

race

, eco

nom

ical

ly d

isad

vant

aged

as

wel

l as

lang

uage

sta

tus

as re

quire

d un

der s

ectio

n 11

11(c

) (2)

(A),

(B),

or (D

).A

ND

Fo

otno

te o

n fo

rm:

Stu

dent

s w

ho a

re E

nglis

h Le

arne

rs a

re re

quire

d to

par

ticip

ate

in a

n an

nual

Eng

lish

lang

uage

pro

ficie

ncy

asse

ssm

ent.

105NCEO

Ap

pen

dix

N

Exe

mpt

ion

and

Non

-Exe

mpt

ion

Text

s

Stat

eTy

pes

of E

xem

ptio

n an

d N

on-E

xem

ptio

ns

Del

awar

eEL

One

Yea

r Exe

mpt

ion:

Crit

eria

for R

ecei

ving

an

Exe

mpt

ion

from

the

DeS

SA

ELA

/Lite

racy

, SAT

Rea

ding

or D

eSS

A-A

lt E

LA

If an

EL

stud

ent r

ecei

ves

an e

xem

ptio

n, h

e or

she

is n

ot re

quire

d to

take

the

DeS

SA

ELA

/Lite

racy

Ass

essm

ent,

SAT

read

ing,

or

the

DeS

SA

-Alt

ELA

ass

essm

ent.

Stu

dent

s re

ceiv

ing

an e

xem

ptio

n sh

ould

hav

e th

e E

L ex

empt

ion

for E

LA e

nter

ed in

to D

eSS

A TI

DE

stu

dent

set

tings

. SAT

Exe

mpt

ions

are

ent

ered

thro

ugh

the

Dis

trict

Tes

t Coo

rdin

ator

s.

The

follo

win

g ar

e th

e cr

iteria

for r

ecei

ving

an

exem

ptio

n fro

m th

ese

lang

uage

arts

test

s:

1. T

he s

tude

nt h

as n

ot b

een

trans

ition

ed o

r exi

ted;

2. I

t is

the

stud

ent’s

firs

t yea

r of e

nrol

lmen

t in

U.S

. sch

ools

.

Flor

ida

Extr

aord

inar

y Ex

empt

ion

and

Med

ical

Exe

mpt

ion:

Who

may

be

elig

ible

for a

n ex

trao

rdin

ary

exem

ptio

n fro

m p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e st

atew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ent b

ecau

se o

f ci

rcum

stan

ces

or c

ondi

tions

? S

ectio

n 10

08.2

12, F

.S.,

esta

blis

hes

two

dete

rmin

atio

ns th

at g

uide

the

IEP

team

in d

eter

min

ing

whe

ther

a s

tude

nt w

ith a

dis

abil-

ity n

eeds

an

extra

ordi

nary

exe

mpt

ion

from

sta

tew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ents

. A

stud

ent w

ith a

dis

abili

ty w

ho h

as a

circ

umst

ance

, defi

ned

acco

rdin

g to

s. 1

008.

212,

F.S

., m

ay b

e el

igib

le fo

r an

extra

ordi

nary

ex

empt

ion

from

par

ticip

atio

n in

the

stat

ewid

e as

sess

men

t. C

ircum

stan

ce is

defi

ned

as a

situ

atio

n in

whi

ch a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

allo

wab

le o

n a

stat

ewid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed a

sses

smen

t are

not

offe

red

to a

stu

dent

dur

ing

the

curr

ent y

ear’s

ass

essm

ent a

dmin

-is

tratio

n be

caus

e of

tech

nolo

gica

l lim

itatio

ns in

the

test

ing

adm

inis

tratio

n pr

ogra

m th

at le

ad to

resu

lts th

at re

flect

the

stud

ent’s

im

paire

d se

nsor

y, m

anua

l or s

peak

ing

skill

s ra

ther

than

the

stud

ent’s

ach

ieve

men

t of t

he b

ench

mar

ks a

sses

sed

by a

sta

tew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ent.

A st

uden

t with

a d

isab

ility

who

has

a c

ondi

tion

may

be

elig

ible

for a

n ex

traor

dina

ry e

xem

ptio

n fro

m p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e st

ate-

wid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed a

sses

smen

t. A

cond

ition

is d

efine

d ac

cord

ing

to s

. 100

8.21

2, F

.S.,

to m

ean

an im

pairm

ent,

whe

ther

rece

ntly

ac

quire

d or

long

stan

ding

, tha

t affe

cts

a st

uden

t’s a

bilit

y to

com

mun

icat

e in

mod

es d

eem

ed a

ccep

tabl

e fo

r sta

tew

ide

stan

dard

-iz

ed a

sses

smen

ts, e

ven

if ap

prop

riate

acc

omm

odat

ions

are

pro

vide

d. T

he im

pairm

ent c

reat

es a

situ

atio

n in

whi

ch th

e re

sults

of

adm

inis

tratio

n of

a s

tate

wid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed a

sses

smen

t wou

ld re

flect

the

stud

ent’s

impa

ired

sens

ory,

man

ual o

r spe

akin

g sk

ills

rath

er th

an th

e st

uden

t’s a

chie

vem

ent o

f the

ben

chm

arks

ass

esse

d by

the

stat

ewid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed a

sses

smen

t. A

lear

ning

, em

otio

nal,

beha

vior

al o

r sig

nific

ant c

ogni

tive

disa

bilit

y, o

r the

rece

ipt o

f ser

vice

s th

roug

h th

e ho

meb

ound

or h

ospi

-ta

lized

pro

gram

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith R

ule

6A-6

.030

20, F

.A.C

., is

not

, in

and

of it

self,

an

adeq

uate

crit

erio

n fo

r gra

ntin

g an

ex

trao

rdin

ary

exem

ptio

n.

106 NCEO

Stat

eTy

pes

of E

xem

ptio

n an

d N

on-E

xem

ptio

ns

Flor

ida

(con

tinue

d)C

-2. W

ho d

eter

min

es w

heth

er a

stu

dent

with

a d

isab

ility

may

be

elig

ible

for a

n ex

trao

rdin

ary

exem

ptio

n fr

om p

artic

ipa-

tion

in th

e st

atew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ent b

ecau

se o

f circ

umst

ance

s or

con

ditio

ns?

The

IEP

team

, whi

ch m

ust i

nclu

de th

e pa

rent

, may

det

erm

ine

if th

e st

uden

t is

elig

ible

for a

n ex

traor

dina

ry e

xem

ptio

n. T

he IE

P te

am m

ust t

hen

subm

it al

l doc

umen

ts re

quire

d to

the

dist

rict s

choo

l sup

erin

tend

ent.

C-3

. Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

for s

ubm

issi

on o

f an

extr

aord

inar

y ex

empt

ion

from

par

ticip

atio

n in

a s

tate

wid

e st

anda

rdiz

ed

asse

ssm

ent t

o th

e co

mm

issi

oner

of e

duca

tion?

Th

e IE

P te

am, w

hich

incl

udes

the

pare

nt, m

ay s

ubm

it a

writ

ten

requ

est f

or a

n ex

traor

dina

ry e

xem

ptio

n to

the

dist

rict s

choo

l su

perin

tend

ent a

t any

tim

e du

ring

the

scho

ol y

ear,

but n

o la

ter t

han

60 d

ays

befo

re th

e fir

st d

ay o

f the

adm

inis

tratio

n w

indo

w o

f th

e st

atew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ent f

or w

hich

the

requ

est i

s m

ade.

The

requ

est m

ust i

nclu

de th

e fo

llow

ing:

• A

writ

ten

desc

riptio

n of

the

stud

ent’s

dis

abili

ties,

incl

udin

g a

spec

ific

desc

riptio

n of

the

stud

ent’s

impa

ired

sens

ory,

man

ual o

r sp

eaki

ng s

kills

; • W

ritte

n do

cum

enta

tion

of th

e m

ost r

ecen

t eva

luat

ion

data

; • W

ritte

n do

cum

enta

tion,

if a

vaila

ble,

of t

he m

ost r

ecen

t adm

inis

tratio

n of

sta

tew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ents

; • W

ritte

n de

scrip

tion

of th

e ef

fect

of t

he c

ircum

stan

ce o

r con

ditio

n, a

s de

fined

in s

ectio

n. 1

008.

212,

F.S

., on

the

stud

ent’s

par

tici-

patio

n in

sta

tew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ents

and

on

the

stud

ent’s

ach

ieve

men

t; • W

ritte

n ev

iden

ce th

at th

e st

uden

t had

the

oppo

rtuni

ty to

lear

n th

e sk

ills

bein

g te

sted

; • W

ritte

n ev

iden

ce th

at th

e st

uden

t had

bee

n pr

ovid

ed a

ppro

pria

te in

stru

ctio

nal a

ccom

mod

atio

ns;

• Writ

ten

evid

ence

as

to w

heth

er th

e st

uden

t has

had

the

oppo

rtuni

ty to

be

asse

ssed

usi

ng th

e in

stru

ctio

nal a

ccom

mod

atio

ns

on th

e st

uden

t’s IE

P th

at a

re a

llow

able

in th

e ad

min

istra

tion

of a

sta

tew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ent;

• Writ

ten

evid

ence

of t

he c

ircum

stan

ce o

r con

ditio

n as

defi

ned

in s

ubse

ctio

n (1

) of R

ule

6A-1

.094

3, F

.A.C

.; an

d • T

he n

ame,

add

ress

and

pho

ne n

umbe

r of t

he s

tude

nt’s

par

ent.

Bas

ed o

n th

e IE

P te

am’s

reco

mm

enda

tion,

the

scho

ol d

istri

ct s

uper

inte

nden

t sha

ll re

com

men

d to

the

com

mis

sion

er o

f edu

-ca

tion

whe

ther

an

extra

ordi

nary

exe

mpt

ion

for a

giv

en a

sses

smen

t adm

inis

tratio

n w

indo

w s

houl

d be

gra

nted

or d

enie

d. T

he

scho

ol d

istri

ct’s

reco

mm

enda

tion

and

acco

mpa

nyin

g do

cum

enta

tion

mus

t be

sent

to th

e Fl

orid

a D

epar

tmen

t of E

duca

tion,

Of-

fice

of th

e C

omm

issi

oner

, 325

Wes

t Gai

nes

Stre

et, T

alla

hass

ee, F

lorid

a, 3

2399

-040

0.

With

in 3

0 ca

lend

ar d

ays

of re

ceiv

ing

the

requ

est,

the

com

mis

sion

er o

f edu

catio

n sh

all v

erify

the

info

rmat

ion

docu

men

ted,

mak

e a

dete

rmin

atio

n an

d no

tify

the

pare

nt a

nd th

e di

stric

t sch

ool s

uper

inte

nden

t in

writ

ing

whe

ther

the

exem

ptio

n ha

s be

en g

rant

ed

or d

enie

d.

Exem

ptio

n fo

r Stu

dent

s w

ith M

edic

al C

ompl

exity

D

-1. W

ho m

ay b

e el

igib

le fo

r an

exem

ptio

n fr

om p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e st

atew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ent b

ecau

se o

f m

edic

al c

ompl

exity

?

107NCEO

Stat

eTy

pes

of E

xem

ptio

n an

d N

on-E

xem

ptio

ns

Flor

ida

(con

tinue

d)S

ectio

n 10

08.2

2(10

), F.

S.,

esta

blis

hes

crite

ria to

gui

de th

e IE

P te

am in

mak

ing

a de

term

inat

ion

abou

t a s

tude

nt w

ith a

dis

abili

ty

who

has

the

need

for a

n ex

empt

ion

from

par

ticip

atio

n on

sta

tew

ide

stan

dard

ized

ass

essm

ents

bec

ause

of t

he s

tude

nt’s

med

i-ca

l com

plex

ity.

Med

ical

com

plex

ity is

defi

ned

to m

ean

a ch

ild w

ho, b

ased

upo

n m

edic

al d

ocum

enta

tion

from

a p

hysi

cian

lice

nsed

und

er

chap

ter 4

58 o

r cha

pter

459

, F.S

., is

med

ical

ly fr

agile

and

nee

ds in

tens

ive

care

bec

ause

of a

con

ditio

n su

ch a

s a

cong

enita

l or

acqu

ired

mul

tisys

tem

dis

ease

; has

a s

ever

e ne

urol

ogic

al o

r cog

nitiv

e di

sord

er w

ith m

arke

d fu

nctio

nal i

mpa

irmen

t; or

is te

chno

l-og

y de

pend

ent f

or a

ctiv

ities

of d

aily

livi

ng a

nd la

cks

the

capa

city

to p

erfo

rm o

n an

ass

essm

ent.

Iow

aN

o O

pt-O

ut:

Ther

e is

no

opt o

ut o

ptio

n fo

r ass

essm

ent p

artic

ipat

ion.

The

onl

y de

cisi

on a

n IE

P te

am c

an m

ake

is w

hich

type

of a

sses

smen

t th

e st

uden

t will

par

ticip

ate

- eith

er th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent o

r the

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t.

Mar

ylan

dN

o Ex

empt

ion

for S

tude

nt W

ithou

t Com

mun

icat

ion

Syst

em:

4. W

hat i

f it i

s im

poss

ible

to a

sses

s a

stud

ent b

ecau

se th

e st

uden

t doe

s no

t app

ear t

o co

mm

unic

ate?

A

ll at

tem

pts

shou

ld b

e m

ade

to fi

nd a

mod

e of

com

mun

icat

ion

with

the

stud

ent a

s so

on a

s he

or s

he is

enr

olle

d in

sch

ool.

If va

rious

app

roac

hes

and

tech

nolo

gies

do

not a

ppea

r to

dem

onst

rate

a c

onsi

sten

t mod

e of

com

mun

icat

ion,

then

con

side

r tha

t all

beha

vior

that

the

stud

ent e

xhib

its is

a fo

rm o

f com

mun

icat

ion,

and

use

this

as

a st

artin

g po

int.

A cr

itica

l ele

men

t in

asse

ssin

g al

l st

uden

ts is

a fo

cus

on c

omm

unic

ativ

e co

mpe

tenc

e as

the

base

for s

tude

nt a

cces

s to

the

MC

CR

S. B

est p

ract

ice

is th

at s

tude

nts

have

a c

omm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

in p

lace

that

allo

ws

them

to d

emon

stra

te a

n un

ders

tand

ing

of a

cade

mic

con

cept

s pr

ior t

o pa

rtici

-pa

tion

in s

tate

wid

e ac

coun

tabi

lity

asse

ssm

ents

. How

ever

, stu

dent

s m

ust s

till p

artic

ipat

e in

the

Mar

ylan

d A

ltern

ate

Ass

essm

ents

w

ith o

r with

out a

com

mun

icat

ion

syst

em. E

ach

IEP

team

sho

uld

cont

inue

to p

rovi

de th

e ne

cess

ary

supp

orts

in o

rder

to d

evel

op

a co

mm

unic

atio

n sy

stem

for a

stu

dent

.

108 NCEO

Stat

eTy

pes

of E

xem

ptio

n an

d N

on-E

xem

ptio

ns

Mis

siss

ippi

Med

ical

Em

erge

ncy

Exem

ptio

n:In

rare

inst

ance

s, a

stu

dent

may

be

unab

le to

par

ticip

ate

in a

ny p

art o

f the

ass

essm

ent d

ue to

a s

igni

fican

t and

doc

umen

ted

med

ical

or m

enta

l em

erge

ncy.

Exa

mpl

es o

f sig

nific

ant m

edic

al e

mer

genc

y in

clud

es a

ser

ious

car

acc

iden

t, ho

spita

lizat

ion,

se-

vere

trau

ma,

men

tal h

ealth

cris

is th

at is

dan

gero

us to

sel

f or o

ther

s, o

r pla

cem

ent i

n ho

spic

e ca

re. A

ll m

edic

ally

frag

ile s

tude

nts

are

expe

cted

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

stat

ewid

e as

sess

men

t unl

ess

a si

gnifi

cant

and

doc

umen

ted

med

ical

em

erge

ncy

exis

ts in

ad-

ditio

n to

med

ical

frag

ility

. C

riter

ia fo

r a S

igni

fican

t Med

ical

Em

erge

ncy:

For

a s

tude

nt to

qua

lify

for t

he S

igni

fican

t Med

ical

Em

erge

ncy

exem

ptio

n fro

m th

e pa

rtici

patio

n ra

te c

alcu

latio

n, a

ll th

e fo

llow

ing

mus

t be

true

: · T

he s

ituat

ion

was

rare

and

uni

que

in th

at th

e st

uden

t was

una

ble,

for m

edic

al re

ason

, to

parti

cipa

te in

any

par

t of t

he a

sses

s-m

ent.

· The

sig

nific

ant m

edic

al e

mer

genc

y w

as d

ue to

a m

edic

al c

ondi

tion

such

as

a se

rious

car

acc

iden

t, ho

spita

lizat

ion,

sev

ere

traum

a, m

enta

l hea

lth c

risis

that

was

dan

gero

us to

sel

f or o

ther

s, o

r pla

cem

ent i

n ho

spic

e ca

re.

· The

stu

dent

was

una

ble,

due

to th

e si

gnifi

cant

med

ical

em

erge

ncy,

to re

ceiv

e ac

adem

ic in

stru

ctio

n du

ring

the

test

ing

perio

d.

The

med

ical

em

erge

ncy

mus

t be

docu

men

ted

by th

e st

uden

t’s li

cens

ed p

hysi

cian

on

the

Non

-Par

ticip

atio

n D

ue to

a S

igni

fican

t M

edic

al E

mer

genc

y Fo

rm. (

Due

to H

IPPA

, the

par

ent m

ay n

eed

to a

ssis

t in

obta

inin

g th

is d

ocum

enta

tion.

) The

sig

natu

re o

f th

e pa

rent

/lega

l gua

rdia

n is

requ

ired

for s

ubm

issi

on.

109NCEO

Stat

eTy

pes

of E

xem

ptio

n an

d N

on-E

xem

ptio

ns

New

H

amps

hire

EL

One

-Yea

r Exe

mpt

ion,

Ext

raor

dina

ry C

ircum

stan

ce, a

nd M

edic

al E

xem

ptio

n:U

pdat

ed: 9

/13/

18 S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t Exe

mpt

ions

Req

uest

for S

tate

App

rove

d S

peci

al C

onsi

dera

tions

(SA

SC

) Sch

ool Y

ear

2018

2019

Eac

h ye

ar, s

tude

nts

with

ver

y se

rious

, chr

onic

, and

frag

ile m

edic

al o

r oth

er c

ondi

tions

can

and

do

parti

cipa

te s

uc-

cess

fully

in N

ew H

amps

hire

’s S

tate

wid

e A

sses

smen

t Sys

tem

. How

ever

, the

re a

re ra

re a

nd u

niqu

e si

tuat

ions

in w

hich

a s

tude

nt

is u

nabl

e to

par

ticip

ate

in a

ny p

art o

f the

sta

tew

ide

asse

ssm

ent.

Suc

h de

cisi

ons

mus

t be

mad

e w

ith th

e gr

eate

st c

are

and

rest

rain

t. E

xem

ptio

ns fo

r par

ticip

atio

n in

the

stat

ewid

e as

sess

men

t mus

t be

subm

itted

to th

e N

ew H

amps

hire

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion

(NH

DO

E) f

or a

ppro

val.

The

follo

win

g ex

empt

ions

may

be

cons

ider

ed:

1. M

edic

al e

mer

genc

y/se

rious

illn

ess

2. S

ever

e em

otio

nal d

istre

ss

3. D

eath

in th

e fa

mily

4.

Stu

dent

who

par

ticip

ates

in a

noth

er S

tate

ass

essm

ent s

yste

m

5. E

xem

ptio

n fro

m th

e E

LA (a

nd w

ritin

g) p

ortio

n O

NLY

of t

he s

tate

wid

e as

sess

men

t sys

tem

for E

LL s

tude

nts

who

hav

e be

en in

th

e co

untry

12

mon

ths

or le

ss.

GE

NE

RA

L G

UID

ELI

NE

: If

the

stud

ent i

s ab

le to

rece

ive

inst

ruct

ion

than

he/

she

is a

ble

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

stat

e w

ide

asse

ssm

ent.

A re

ques

t for

an

exem

ptio

n ca

n be

mad

e fo

r any

of t

he s

tate

wid

e as

sess

men

ts b

y su

bmitt

ing

a S

AS

C re

ques

t to

the

NH

DO

E B

urea

u of

Ass

ess-

men

t and

Acc

ount

abili

ty fo

r app

rova

l.S

ourc

e: h

ttps:

//ww

w.e

duca

tion.

nh.g

ov/in

stru

ctio

n/as

sess

men

t/alt_

asse

ss/d

ocum

ents

/nhd

oe_s

asc_

2018

_19.

pdf

New

Jer

sey

Alte

rnat

e fo

r One

or M

ore

Con

tent

Are

as:

Par

ticip

atio

n in

the

NJ

DLM

alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t req

uire

s a

yes

answ

er to

Que

stio

n 1

and

to Q

uest

ions

2 &

3 fo

r eac

h of

the

appl

icab

le c

onte

nt a

reas

. Bas

ed o

n th

e gu

idel

ine

ques

tions

bel

ow, a

stu

dent

may

par

ticip

ate

in th

e D

LM in

a c

onte

nt a

rea

and

the

gene

ral a

sses

smen

t in

anot

her c

onte

nt a

rea,

alth

ough

this

is ra

re.

Eng

lish

Lang

uage

Arts

Che

ck O

ne O

nly:

Stu

dent

will

par

ticip

ate

in th

e D

LM _

____

_ or

PA

RC

C _

____

_ M

athe

mat

ics

Che

ck O

ne O

nly:

Stu

dent

will

par

ticip

ate

in th

e D

LM _

____

_ or

PA

RC

C _

____

_ S

cien

ce C

heck

One

Onl

y: S

tude

nt w

ill p

artic

ipat

e in

the

DLM

___

___

or N

JSLA

-S _

____

_

Nor

th

Dak

ota

Alte

rnat

e fo

r All

Con

tent

Are

as:

IEP

team

s m

ust s

elec

t alte

rnat

e as

sess

men

t for

all

cont

ent a

reas

ass

esse

d (E

nglis

h/La

ngua

ge A

rts, M

athe

mat

ics,

and

Sci

-en

ce).

Stu

dent

s w

ho p

artic

ipat

e in

Nor

th D

akot

a’s

Alte

rnat

e A

sses

smen

ts w

ill n

ot p

artic

ipat

e in

the

Nor

th D

akot

a S

tate

Ass

ess-

men

t

110 NCEO

Stat

eTy

pes

of E

xem

ptio

n an

d N

on-E

xem

ptio

ns

Ohi

oA

ltern

ate

for A

ll C

onte

nt A

reas

:A

stud

ent w

ho p

artic

ipat

es in

the

AA

SC

D p

artic

ipat

es in

this

ass

essm

ent f

or a

ll co

nten

t are

as.

Texa

sN

o A

uthe

ntic

Aca

dem

ic R

espo

nse

Exem

ptio

n an

d M

edic

al E

xem

ptio

n:

ELIG

IBIL

ITY

CR

ITER

IAIf

the

adm

issi

on, r

evie

w, a

nd d

ism

issa

l (A

RD

) com

mitt

ee h

as p

revi

ousl

y de

term

ined

that

a s

tude

nt m

eets

the

elig

ibili

ty c

rite-

ria fo

r STA

AR

Alte

rnat

e 2

and

TELP

AS

Alte

rnat

e an

d th

e st

uden

t is

bein

g co

nsid

ered

for a

No

Aut

hent

ic A

cade

mic

Res

pons

e (N

AA

R) d

esig

natio

n, th

e A

RD

com

mitt

ee m

ust d

iscu

ss th

e el

igib

ility

crit

eria

bel

ow. T

he a

nsw

er to

at l

east

one

of t

he tw

o N

AA

R

Elig

ibili

ty C

riter

ia q

uest

ions

list

ed b

elow

mus

t be

YE

S. A

dditi

onal

ly th

e A

RD

com

mitt

ee m

ust d

iscu

ss th

e tw

o as

sura

nces

. Bot

h as

sura

nces

mus

t be

initi

aled

by

dist

rict p

erso

nnel

in o

rder

for t

he s

tude

nt to

rece

ive

a N

AA

R d

esig

natio

n. S

tude

nts

qual

ifyin

g fo

r NA

AR

will

not

be

requ

ired

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

adm

inis

tratio

n of

STA

AR

Alte

rnat

e 2

and

TELP

AS

Alte

rnat

e fo

r any

cou

rse,

su

bjec

t, or

dom

ain.

A s

core

cod

e of

‘N’ m

ust b

e re

cord

ed fo

r all

test

s th

e st

uden

t wou

ld h

ave

take

n.

ELI

GIB

ILIT

Y C

RIT

ERIA

If th

e ad

mis

sion

, rev

iew

, and

dis

mis

sal (

AR

D) c

omm

ittee

has

pre

viou

sly

dete

rmin

ed th

at a

stu

dent

mee

ts th

e el

igib

ility

crit

eria

fo

r STA

AR

Alte

rnat

e 2

and

TELP

AS

Alte

rnat

e an

d th

e st

uden

t is

bein

g co

nsid

ered

for a

med

ical

exc

eptio

n de

sign

atio

n, th

e A

RD

co

mm

ittee

, in

conj

unct

ion

with

LPA

C a

s ne

cess

ary,

mus

t dis

cuss

the

elig

ibili

ty c

riter

ia b

elow

. At l

east

one

of t

he s

peci

fic m

edic

al

cond

ition

s lis

ted

belo

w s

houl

d de

scrib

e th

e m

edic

al c

ondi

tion

of th

e st

uden

t. A

dditi

onal

ly th

e A

RD

com

mitt

ee m

ust d

iscu

ss th

e th

ree

assu

ranc

es. A

ll of

thes

e as

sura

nces

mus

t be

initi

aled

by

dist

rict p

erso

nnel

in o

rder

for t

he s

tude

nt to

rece

ive

a m

edic

al

exce

ptio

n. S

tude

nts

qual

ifyin

g fo

r a m

edic

al e

xcep

tion

will

not

be

requ

ired

to p

artic

ipat

e in

the

adm

inis

tratio

n of

STA

AR

Alte

r-na

te 2

and

TE

LPA

S A

ltern

ate

for a

ny c

ours

e, s

ubje

ct, o

r dom

ain

for w

hich

they

are

enr

olle

d in

the

curr

ent y

ear.

A sc

ore

code

of

‘M’ m

ust b

e re

cord

ed fo

r all

test

s th

e st

uden

t wou

ld h

ave

take

n. A

sses

smen

t dec

isio

ns m

ust b

e co

mm

unic

ated

to n

eces

sary

pe

rson

nel.

111NCEO

Stat

eTy

pes

of E

xem

ptio

n an

d N

on-E

xem

ptio

ns

Uta

hA

ltern

ate

for A

ll C

onte

nt A

reas

, and

Par

ent E

xem

ptio

n Pr

oces

s:S

tude

nt is

lear

ning

con

tent

link

ed to

the

Uta

h C

ore

Sta

ndar

ds th

roug

h th

e A

ltern

ate

Ach

ieve

men

t Sta

ndar

ds, t

he E

ssen

tial E

le-

men

ts a

nd th

e E

xten

ded

Cor

e S

tand

ards

for a

ll co

nten

t are

as; a

nd •

Det

erm

ined

by

the

IEP

team

. Fro

m c

riter

ia d

ocum

ent.

Has

exe

mpt

ion

proc

ess:

3.

1. S

peci

al C

ondi

tions

Tha

t War

rant

Exe

mpt

ion

from

Sta

tew

ide

Ass

essm

ent

A pa

rent

or l

egal

gua

rdia

n m

ay o

pt h

is o

r her

stu

dent

out

of t

akin

g an

ass

essm

ent i

f the

par

ent c

onta

cts

the

loca

l sch

ool t

o re

ques

t/inf

orm

the

scho

ol th

at th

e pa

rent

’s s

tude

nt n

ot b

e te

sted

, con

sist

ent w

ith L

EA

Adm

inis

trativ

e tim

elin

es a

nd p

roce

dure

s.

Whe

n a

stud

ent i

s ex

empt

ed fr

om a

n as

sess

men

t, it

is o

nly

for t

he im

med

iate

adm

inis

tratio

n of

the

asse

ssm

ent.

The

stud

ent

will

be

incl

uded

in th

e ne

xt a

dmin

istra

tion

of th

e as

sess

men

t, or

in o

ther

ass

essm

ents

adm

inis

tere

d du

ring

the

sam

e sc

hool

ye

ar T

he R

easo

n fo

r the

exe

mpt

ion

mus

t be

docu

men

ted

in th

e st

uden

t’s c

umul

ativ

e re

cord

. Stu

dent

s no

t tes

ted

due

to p

aren

t re

ques

t sha

ll re

ceiv

e a

non‐

profi

cien

t sco

re, w

hich

sha

ll be

use

d in

sch

ool a

ccou

ntab

ility

cal

cula

tions

.

Was

hing

ton

Alte

rnat

e fo

r All

Con

tent

Are

as:

Not

e: S

tude

nts

mee

ting

crite

ria a

nd u

nabl

e to

par

ticip

ate

in th

e S

mar

ter B

alan

ced

ELA

and

mat

hem

atic

s te

sts

and

the

WC

AS

sh

ould

take

the

WA

-AIM

in a

ll ar

eas.

Wyo

min

gA

ltern

ate

for A

ll C

onte

nt A

reas

, and

No

Opt

-Out

:C

an s

tude

nts

parti

cipa

te in

the

gene

ral a

sses

smen

t in

one

cont

ent a

rea

(e.g

., m

athe

mat

ics)

and

par

ticip

ate

in th

e W

Y-A

LT in

an

othe

r con

tent

are

a (e

.g.,

ELA

)? N

o. If

a s

tude

nt c

an p

artic

ipat

e in

any

par

t of t

he g

ener

al a

sses

smen

t, th

en h

e or

she

sho

uld

take

the

entir

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent w

ith a

ccom

mod

atio

ns, a

s ne

eded

. As

man

y st

uden

ts a

s po

ssib

le s

houl

d pa

rtici

pate

in th

e ge

nera

l ass

essm

ent.

Can

par

ents

opt

thei

r chi

ld(r

en) o

ut o

f req

uire

d st

atew

ide

asse

ssm

ents

suc

h as

WY-

TOP

P?

No,

opt

ing

out o

f sta

te te

sts

requ

ired

by la

w is

not

allo

wed

. In

the

sprin

g of

201

4, th

e W

DE

requ

este

d an

opi

nion

from

the

Wyo

-m

ing

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

’s O

ffice

rega

rdin

g pa

rent

opt

out

s fro

m s

tate

-man

date

d te

stin

g (e

.g.W

Y-A

LT, W

Y-TO

PP,

and

AC

T). T

he

follo

win

g is

par

t of t

he A

G’s

resp

onse

:“In

sum

mar

y, th

e S

tate

Boa

rd o

f Edu

catio

n is

aut

horiz

ed to

est

ablis

h th

e st

atew

ide

acco

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

pur

suan

t to

stat

e la

w,

incl

udin

g th

e W

yom

ing

Acc

ount

abili

ty in

Edu

catio

n A

ct. I

t has

pro

mul

gate

d ru

les

that

requ

ire d

istri

cts

to a

dmin

iste

r the

rele

vant

as

sess

men

ts to

all

stud

ents

in th

e ap

prop

riate

gra

de le

vels

. The

se re

quire

men

ts a

re w

ithin

the

auth

ority

gra

nted

to th

e bo

ard

by th

e le

gisl

atur

e. C

onse

quen

tly, d

istri

cts

may

not

allo

w s

tude

nts

or th

eir p

aren

ts to

opt

them

out

of t

he a

sses

smen

ts p

rovi

ded

by la

w.”

http

s://1

ddlx

tt2jo

wkv

s672

myo

6z14

-wpe

ngin

e.ne

tdna

-ssl

.com

/wp-

cont

ent/u

ploa

ds/2

018/

11/W

Y-A

LT-F

AQ

_11.

13.1

8.pd

f

NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration