Skip Navigation
National Profile on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards:

NCSER 2009-3014
August 2009

Table C25.  Was there a process to ensure fairness in the development of the alternate assessment?


State 1. Yes, bias review
conducted systematically
and regularly
2. Yes, bias review
not conducted regularly
3. No evidence of
bias review
Total171914
Percent33.3337.2527.45
    
AlabamaX
AlaskaX
ArizonaX
ArkansasX
CaliforniaX
    
ColoradoX
ConnecticutX
DelawareX
District of ColumbiaX
Florida
    
GeorgiaX
HawaiiX
IdahoX
IllinoisX
IndianaX
    
IowaX
KansasX
KentuckyX
LouisianaX
MaineX
    
MarylandX
MassachusettsX
Michigan1X / X— / —— / —
MinnesotaX
MississippiX
    
MissouriX
MontanaX
NebraskaX
NevadaX
New HampshireX
    
New JerseyX
New MexicoX
New YorkX
North CarolinaX
North DakotaX
    
OhioX
OklahomaX
OregonX
PennsylvaniaX
Rhode IslandX
    
South CarolinaX
South DakotaX
TennesseeX
TexasX
UtahX
    
VermontX
VirginiaX
WashingtonX
West VirginiaX
WisconsinX
WyomingX
— No.
X Yes.
† Not applicable. State did not have alternate achievement standards for this assessment.
1 More than one assessment used. See explanation in introductory text of this appendix.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Special Education Research, National Study on Alternate Assessments (NSAA), state data summaries for school year 2006–07.