How Are Statewide Assessment Data Like Window Shades? Transparency Matters

My first home purchase was a small condo on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. It was on the top floor of a new building and had a wall of floor-to-ceiling windows across the back of the living room. This condo was quite an upgrade from the basement apartment I had been living in, and I welcomed the idea of natural light! I loved that the windows faced southeast, so I could wake up to morning sunshine after a few years in my dark basement cave. But I was not prepared for such bright light.

Pivoting now to statewide assessment, let’s take a look at how participation and performance data for students with disabilities moved from darkness into bright light. Until the early 2000s, information about assessment participation and performance of students with disabilities was largely unknown, lost in the darkness. Two federal laws started to shine a light on the participation and performance of students with disabilities: the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Both laws required states to include all students, including students with disabilities, in statewide assessment systems. The ESEA established a minimum standard of a 95% participation rate and required states to disaggregate performance data for the subgroup of students with disabilities.

Both the ESEA and IDEA hold states accountable for the participation and performance of students with disabilities. Under IDEA, Indicator 3 of the SPP/APR monitors their participation and performance. Until recently, Indicator 3 measured performance for the entire subgroup of students with disabilities. For the new FFY 2020–25 SPP/APR, however, states are required to disaggregate data for the “students with disabilities” subgroup even further.

To date, Indicator 3C reported, “proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade-level and alternate academic achievement standards.” The FFY 2020–25 SPP/APR separates 3C into two sub-indicators:

- 3B: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade-level academic achievement standards; and

- 3C: Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against alternate achievement standards.

Indicator 3B now reports the proficiency rate for the vast majority of students with disabilities against grade-level achievement standards. Indicator 3C reports the proficiency rate of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities against alternate achievement standards. When shining a light on the proficiency rates of two subgroups of students with disabilities, what will we see?

We might see that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have a relatively high proficiency rate against alternate achievement standards compared to the proficiency rate of other students with disabilities against grade-level achievement standards. If so, states may wonder if the alternate achievement standards are sufficiently challenging or if the population of students taking the alternate assessment was appropriately identified. On the other hand, we might see that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have lower proficiency rates against alternate achievement standards compared to the proficiency rate of other students with disabilities against grade-level standards. If so, states may consider whether the alternate achievement standards are accessible to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. If the alternate achievement standards are not accessible, states may determine that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities need more instructional support or accommodations. Whatever the results, the new Indicator 3 will shine a light on information previously kept in “relative darkness” or, at a minimum, the information will be there in plain sight not out of view.

So, what happened in my glaringly bright condo? Eventually, I ordered floor-to-ceiling blackout shades so that I could control the light. However, in statewide assessment, we can never order blackout shades to hide what we have seen, nor should we want to. Our eyes will adjust to the light, and we will find a way to use what we have learned from this increased transparency to improve decision making and outcomes for all students with disabilities. 

For more detail on specific changes to Indicator 3, see Statewide Assessment: Indicator 3 Measurement Changes From FFY 2019 to FFY 2020–2025.

- Erin Lomax