Chapter IV:
Inclusion of All Students in Title I Assessments

What does the law require?
    Title I requires that all students in the grades being assessed participate in the assessments.  Limited English Proficient (LEP) and disabled students must be provided  “reasonable adaptations and accommodations.”  Title I explicitly requires the inclusion of LEP students and requires that such students be assessed “ to the extent practicable, in the language and form most likely to yield accurate and reliable information on what they know and can do in subjects other than English.”  As the Department has construed the law, “the only category of students who may be exempted from testing are students who have not attended schools in the local education agency for a full academic year.” In such cases, the students must still be tested but their scores are not to be used in measuring the progress of individual schools.

Why is full inclusion an important civil rights provision?
    Since states owe an obligation to all students, including those who are learning English and those who are disabled, it is important that all be included in assessments.

Research published by the Harvard Civil Rights Project underscored the importance of full inclusion: 

“One benefit of an all-inclusive assessment system is that it gives us a more accurate picture of the status of the educational system.   When any group of students is systematically excluded from the measurement system, we have a biased picture of education, particularly if the group excluded tends to be low-performing students.”[16]

Moreover, there is real danger that students who are exempted or excused from assessments will not get the attention and services they need, because nobody is accountable for their progress.

How have the states fallen short of the requirement?

In their evaluation of final assessments, the Department determined that 22 states did not properly include limited English proficient students and fourteen states did not properly include students with disabilities in their assessment systems.

Inclusion of Limited English Proficient Students

·        In excluding 58% of its LEP students, the Department found Nevada, was “effectively removing these students from measures of school progress.”

·        In North Carolina, for example 40-46% of limited English proficient (LEP) students in grades three through eight were exempted from the state’s end of grade exams. The Department described this exclusion as “excessive.”

·        Similarly, Wisconsin also excluded 40% of its LEP students in each grade tested in the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam. 

·        California has excluded more than 90,000 LEP and disabled students from their current assessment system.[17]

·        In Maine, the Department noted that “a proportion of the students with disabilities and LEP population in the state currently do not appear to be addressed.” Department officials were unable to determine statewide participation rates for LEP and disabled students in Maine.

·        The Department, however, congratulated Texas for changing and improving its policies for inclusion of LEP students.

Accommodations and Native Language Assessment

A number of states provided incomplete or insufficient evidence that appropriate accommodations would be provided to LEP and disabled students.  These states included California and Nevada.  In the case of Kansas, which indicated plans to offer accommodations, the peer reviewers inquired whether the state had “investigated the technical quality of the accommodated scores.”  It was unclear from the file and the decision letter, however, whether the question was ever satisfactorily answered.

Although the Department’s guidance was unequivocal in informing states, peer reviewers and others of the requirement to test English language learners “in the language and form most likely to yield accurate information” about their knowledge and skills, the Department’s decision letters generally did not emphasize this requirement.  Most were silent on the question.  Exceptions include:

·        Kentucky.  The Department noted that:  “demographic changes in Kentucky may warrant changes in the assessment system. If the limited English proficient population (LEP) increases, you may need to reexamine the manner in which LEP students are assessed, particularly the practicability of assessing those students in their native language in order to best determine what they know and can do.”

·        California (which enrolls approximately 40% of the nation’s students with limited English proficiency, more than any other state).  The Department found that the state met neither the requirements for native language assessment nor those for accommodations.

Inclusion of students with disabilities

·        Texas failed to include half of its disabled students in its assessment system, prompting the Department’s determination that the “rate of exclusion is excessive.”  In its 12/15/00 decision letter the Department indicated:

“Texas must develop a plan to increase the number of students with disabilities included in the TAAS assessments at all tested grade levels. Data provided by Texas for school year 1999-2000 indicates that approximately 50% of the students with disabilities have been exempted from TAAS for grades 3-8 and 10 by their local admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committees. This rate of exclusion is excessive. Section 1111(b)(3)(G) of the Title I statute makes clear the only [exemptions permitted are for] students who have not attended schools in the local educational agency for a full academic year. It should also be noted that the role of IEP teams is to determine how a student will participate in State and district-wide assessments not whether they will participate. States with approved assessment systems include approximately 80-90% of students with disabilities in their regular assessment system with or without accommodations. The other 10-20% of students with disabilities are assessed using an alternate assessment as required by IDEA.”

·        Nevada excluded 43% its disabled students from their assessments.

·        The exclusion rate in West Virginia was even more egregious with 64% of disabled students excluded, while no evidence was submitted to the department regarding the number of LEP students excluded.