Table D4. How was the administration process monitored and verified?

Appendix B: Data Tables

State	1. Observer/monitor was present	2. A local or school- level reviewer confirmed proper administration of the assessment	3. No independent verification process
Total	6	30	20
Percent	11.76	58.82	39.22

Alabama	—	X	—
Alaska	—	X	—
Arizona	—	—	X
Arkansas	—	X	—
California	—	X	—

Colorado	—	—	X
Connecticut	—	—	X
Delaware	—	X	—
District of Columbia	—	X	—
Florida	—	X	—

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	X	—
North Dakota	—	—	X

Ohio	—	X	—
Oklahoma	—	—	X
Oregon	—	—	X
Pennsylvania	X	X	—
Rhode Island	—	X	—

South Carolina	X	X	—
South Dakota	—	X	—
Tennessee	—	X	—
Texas	—	—	X
Utah	—	—	X

Vermont	—	X	—
Virginia	—	—	X
Washington	—	—	X
West Virginia	—	X	—
Wisconsin	—	—	X
Wyoming	X	X	—
— No. X Yes. 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.