Table C26. What evidence supported the process to ensure fairness in the development of the alternate assessment?

Appendix B: Data Tables

State	1. Regularly scheduled bias review by experts	2. Statistical analyses
Total	16	8
Percent	94.12	47.06

Alabama	†	†
Alaska	†	†
Arizona	†	†
Arkansas	†	†
California	X	X

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

Georgia	†	†
Hawaii	X	—
Idaho	†	†
Illinois	†	†
Indiana	†	†

Iowa	†	†
Kansas	†	†
Kentucky	†	†
Louisiana	†	†
Maine	†	†

Maryland	†	†
Massachusetts	†	†
Michigan¹	X / X	X / —
Minnesota	X	—
Mississippi	X	—

Missouri	—	X
Montana	X	—
Nebraska	X	X
Nevada	†	†
New Hampshire	†	†

New Jersey	†	†
New Mexico	X	—
New York	X	—
North Carolina	†	†
North Dakota	†	†

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

South Carolina	X	X
South Dakota	X	X
Tennessee	†	†
Texas	†	†
Utah	†	†

Vermont	†	†
Virginia	†	†
Washington	†	†
West Virginia	X	—
Wisconsin	†	†
Wyoming	†	†
— 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.