	Introduction

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, P.L. 107-110 ), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108-446 ) both require all students with disabilities to participate in district and state assessments. Because student achievement on state assessments is used to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) in state accountability systems mandated by ESEA, schools are now held accountable for the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities. The 113 th Congress is actively considering whether to amend and extend the ESEA. As part of these deliberations, consideration has been given to how students with disabilities are included in accountability systems. Although many students with disabilities are able to participate in the general state assessment, either with or without accommodations, other students with disabilities may not be able to participate fully in the general state assessment because of the nature and severity of their disability. These students may need an alternate assessment that is tailored to their needs and allows them to more accurately demonstrate what they know and can do. There are currently five assessment options for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities: (1) general state assessment, (2) general state assessment with accommodations, (3) alternate assessment based on grade-level standards, (4) alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), and (5) alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). These restrictions are outlined in regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and have numerous implications for state accountability systems. In August 2013, ED proposed regulations that would require states to transition away from AA-MAS. 107-110 ) in exchange for meeting four principles established by ED. No later than the 2014-2015 school year, states operating under the ESEA flexibility package must include students who are currently eligible to take alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in their assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards. Thus, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will no longer be able to administer alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards as of the 2014-2015 school year, regardless of when or if ED enacts the aforementioned proposed regulations. As none of the aforementioned changes have been promulgated through statutory language or regulation, this report focuses primarily on the current ED regulations that allow states to use scores from alternate assessments for AYP calculations in accountability systems. It does, however, highlight some issues that may arise due to the proposed regulations and the issuance of the ESEA flexibility package. The following sections describe the regulations issued by ED concerning the development of AA-AAS and AA-MAS and their use in state accountability systems. Students in any of the disability categories described in IDEA may be eligible to participate in AA-MAS. The number of proficient and advanced scores based on AA-MAS may not exceed 2% of all students in the grades assessed in reading/language arts and in mathematics within the state accountability system. Reporting Requirements

States are required to report to the Secretary separately on the participation of students with disabilities in state accountability systems. Development and Implementation of AA-AAS

In school year 2005-2006, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had alternate assessments in reading and mathematics. An analysis of these proposed changes to current practice is provided in the following sections. Under this proposal, the number of proficient and advanced scores based on AA-AAS may not exceed 1% of all students assessed, and the number of proficient and advanced scores based on AA-MAS may not exceed 1% of all students assessed. 5 would not limit the use of alternate assessments in the accountability system.
The 113th Congress is actively considering whether to amend and extend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, P.L. 107-110). As part of these deliberations, consideration has been given to how students with disabilities are included in accountability systems. The ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108-446) both require all students with disabilities to participate in district and state assessments. Because student achievement on state assessments is used to determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) in state accountability systems mandated by the ESEA, schools are held accountable for the achievement of all students, including students with disabilities.
While many students with disabilities are able to participate in the general state assessments, either with or without accommodations, other students with disabilities may not be able to participate fully in the general state assessment because of the nature or severity of their disability. These students may need an alternate assessment that is tailored to their needs to allow them to accurately demonstrate what they know and can do. In response to these needs, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) created five assessment options for measuring the achievement of students with disabilities through regulations, including two options that allow students to take an alternate assessment (AA), one based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) and the other based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). There are restrictions on how the performance of students participating in AA-AAS or AA-MAS assessments are included in state accountability systems. Specifically, the regulations limit the number of proficient and advanced scores based on these alternate assessments that may be included in the determination of AYP. The number of proficient and advanced scores based on AA-AAS may not exceed 1% of all students in the grades assessed in reading and in mathematics within the state accountability system. Similarly, the number of proficient and advanced scores based on AA-MAS may not exceed 2% of all students in the grades assessed in reading and in mathematics within the state accountability system. These limits are commonly referred to as the "1% and 2% caps or rules."
ED is currently engaged in an examination of the regulations related to AA-MAS and has proposed eliminating the use of AA-MAS entirely. Currently, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have had their applications for an ESEA flexibility package approved by ED. Under this package, states have been granted waivers of ESEA accountability requirements in exchange for meeting principles specified by ED. As part of these principles, no later than the 2014-2015 school year, states operating under the ESEA flexibility package must include students who are currently eligible to take AA-MAS in their assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards. Thus, 42 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico will no longer be able to administer AA-MAS as of the 2014-2015 school year, regardless of when or if ED enacts the aforementioned proposed regulations.
This report focuses primarily on current law and state and local implementation of alternate assessments in state accountability systems, including the challenges in developing and implementing these assessments and an analysis of recommended changes to assessment policies for students with disabilities. In addition, it highlights some issues that may arise due to changes made by ED through waivers of ESEA accountability requirements and the associated conditions that states must meet to receive the waivers. This report does not reflect ED's proposal to eliminate AA-MAS and require states to start transitioning away from the use of AA-MAS in the near future, as the proposed changes have not been adopted.