Assessment

GAO Revises Estimates of Students Excluded From NAEP

By Debra Viadero — November 08, 2005 3 min read

Federal auditors last week dramatically revised their estimates of how many students with disabilities were excluded from taking national reading tests in 2002.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, in a July report, said that states on average excused 5 percent of students with disabilities from taking the 2002 National Assessment of Educational Progress tests in reading. But last week, in a letter posted on its Web site, the GAO said the average was closer to 40 percent.

“No Child Left Behind Act: Most Students With Disabilities Participated in Statewide Assessments, But Inclusion Options Could Be Improved” is available from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Read also the GAO’s letter of revision.

The change stems from crossed signals between the GAO, which is the auditing arm of Congress, and the U.S. Department of Education, which reports the national exam results.

The issue is potentially important, according to experts, because the congressionally mandated tests are intended to be nationally representative, which means they should include students with disabilities as much as possible.

By the GAO’s new methods, for instance, an average of 35 percent of students with disabilities sat out the 2005 reading tests.

According to Marnie S. Shaul, who supervised the GAO study, the confusion arose when investigators misunderstood the original numbers as representing the percentages of students in the total test-taking population who were excused from the test because of their disabilities, rather than the percentages of students with disabilities sitting out the tests.

The National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP, has been trying to encourage states to be more inclusive. Rates of exclusion for students with disabilities have crept down, as a result, from 57 percent on the 1992 4th grade reading tests to 40 percent in 2002, and then to 35 percent this year.

The Education Department does not normally highlight those numbers in its NAEP reports to the general public, but instead gives the proportions of overall test-takers who sat out the assessment because of their disabilities.

Education Department officials did not bring the GAO error to federal investigators’ attention until two months after the July report was published, according to Ms. Shaul, who is the auditing agency’s director of education, workforce, and income-security issues.

She said GAO mailed the department draft copies of the report three weeks before it was published.

Department officials, for their part, said they began alerting low-level agency officials to the error as soon as they picked up on it.

“In this case, we missed the error, and it should’ve been caught,” said Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, the director of the department’s Institute of Education Sciences.

‘Disappointingly High’

The congressional agency posted the revised numbers in an Oct. 28 letter to U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who had requested the original report.

School principals are allowed to exclude students with severe disabilities from the federal tests and to provide some accommodations, such as longer testing times, so that students with less severe learning problems can still take part. Exclusion rates vary widely among states. (“States Vary on Students Excluded From NAEP Tests,” Nov. 2, 2005.)

An expert on educating children with disabilities said the 40 percent exclusion number was “disappointingly high.”

“It cries out for NAEP to pay attention to this and to really figure out a way to address the issue,” said Martha L. Thurlow, the director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes, based at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. “To get an accurate picture of what’s going on in reading and math achievement, we really need to include all our students.”

A version of this article appeared in the November 09, 2005 edition of Education Week as GAO Revises Estimates of Students Excluded From NAEP

Events

School & District Management Live Event EdWeek Leadership Symposium
Education Week's Premier Leadership Event for K12 School & District Leaders.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Law & Courts Webinar
The Future of Criminal Justice Reform: A Sphere Education Initiative Conversation
America’s criminal justice system is in crisis and calls for reform are dominating the national debate. Join Cato’s Sphere Education Initiative and Education Week for a webinar on criminal justice and policing featuring the nation’s
Content provided by Cato Institute
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Equity, Care and Connection: New SEL Tools and Practices to Support Students and Adults
As school districts plan to welcome students back into buildings for the upcoming school year, this is the perfect time to take a hard look at both our practices and our systems to build a
Content provided by Panorama Education

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Assessment Opinion What Federally Mandated State Tests Are Good For (And What They Aren’t)
Spring 2021 testing is happening. That can be a good thing—if the goal is about more than school accountability.
Stuart Kahl
5 min read
Two people analyze test data
Visual Generation/iStock/Getty
Assessment Opinion The National Assessment Governing Board’s Troubling Gag Order
NAGB's recently released restrictions on how its board members can communicate set a troubling precedent.
3 min read
Image shows a multi-tailed arrow hitting the bullseye of a target.
DigitalVision Vectors/Getty
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Assessment Whitepaper
INVALSI Addresses Italy’s COVID-19 Learning Loss
Find out how INVALSI worked with TAO to develop a plan of action that can serve as a model for other education leaders grappling with the...
Content provided by TAO by Open Assessment Technologies
Assessment Biden Administration's Level of Tolerance for Cutting Standardized Tests Comes Into Focus
A distinction has grown between states having to make tests available, and districts deciding it's not practical to make students take them.
8 min read
Image of a test sheet.
sengchoy/iStock/Getty