Table C23. What was the initial process of aligning alternate achievement standards with the state content standards, and how was it validated?
State | 1. A formal alignment study was conducted (Formal study) |
2. Alignment was reported, but no formal study was conducted (Anecdotal or committee process) |
3. No alignment study was conducted |
---|---|---|---|
Total | 36 | 12 | 2 |
Percent | 70.59 | 23.53 | 3.92 |
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. |