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 |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 17 | 19 | 14 |
Percent | 33.33 | 37.25 | 27.45 |
Alabama | — | — | X |
Alaska | — | X | — |
Arizona | — | X | — |
Arkansas | — | — | X |
California | X | — | — |
Colorado | X | — | — |
Connecticut | — | X | — |
Delaware | — | — | X |
District of Columbia | — | — | X |
Florida | † | † | † |
Georgia | — | X | — |
Hawaii | X | — | — |
Idaho | — | X | — |
Illinois | — | X | — |
Indiana | — | X | — |
Iowa | — | X | — |
Kansas | — | X | — |
Kentucky | — | — | X |
Louisiana | — | — | X |
Maine | — | X | — |
Maryland | — | — | X |
Massachusetts | — | — | X |
Michigan1 | X / X | — / — | — / — |
Minnesota | X | — | — |
Mississippi | X | — | — |
Missouri | X | — | — |
Montana | X | — | — |
Nebraska | X | — | — |
Nevada | — | X | — |
New Hampshire | — | X | — |
New Jersey | — | — | X |
New Mexico | X | — | — |
New York | X | — | — |
North Carolina | — | X | — |
North Dakota | — | X | — |
Ohio | — | — | X |
Oklahoma | — | — | X |
Oregon | X | — | — |
Pennsylvania | X | — | — |
Rhode Island | X | — | — |
South Carolina | X | — | — |
South Dakota | X | — | — |
Tennessee | — | X | — |
Texas | — | X | — |
Utah | — | — | X |
Vermont | — | — | X |
Virginia | — | X | — |
Washington | — | X | — |
West Virginia | X | — | — |
Wisconsin | — | — | X |
Wyoming | — | X | — |
— 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. |