NCEO Report 449
NCEO Report 449:
How Students Who Take the AA-AAAS Are Included in State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIP): An Analysis of FFY 2021 SSIPs
Executive Summary
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) implemented a new federal accountability framework to oversee and aid states in their execution of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This framework, Results Driven Accountability (RDA), required states to create an extensive, multi-year strategy to improve outcomes for children with disabilities. This comprehensive plan, the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), has a particular focus on a State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) related to student performance. Many states specified SiMRs that use assessment data as the outcome measure, but little is known about how students who participate in the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) are included in these plans. Students who take the AA-AAAS have the most significant cognitive disabilities.
To address this need, an analysis was conducted of states’ SSIPs to learn more about how students who participate in the AA-AAAS were included in SSIPs in states with assessment-related SiMRs. This report presents the findings of the analysis of states’ Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2021 SSIPs, submitted to OSEP in February 2023. The analysis included data from both regular states (e.g., Alabama, Wyoming) and unique states (e.g., Puerto Rico, Palau).
Results showed that in FFY 2021, only one of the 42 states with assessment-related SiMRs, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, explicitly included students who participate in the AA-AAAS in their SiMR statement. Seven states (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Nebraska, Palau, Vermont) included results from their state’s AA-AAAS in reading or mathematics as a data source for their SiMR outcomes measure. One state (Delaware) detailed an infrastructure improvement strategy that focused on school teams working with students who take the AA-AAAS.
Assessment data play a critical role in the implementation and evaluation of many states’ SSIPs. However, this analysis revealed significant gaps in how students who take the AA-AAAS were included in these improvement efforts. It is important that states understand these gaps so that they can consider why these students were excluded and whether there is a need to create more inclusive SSIPs that help ensure that all students with disabilities benefit from this educational improvement initiative.
Introduction
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that each state have a State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) that evaluates the state’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA. States must report annually to the Secretary of Education on their performance on the indicators included in the SPP/APR. In June 2014, the U.S. Department of Education introduced a new framework, Results Driven Accountability (RDA), which also included educational results and outcomes for students with disabilities in making each state’s annual determination under the IDEA. The SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) (Indicator 17) which specifies a State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) related to student outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). Many states have SiMRs that address performance on state assessments used for accountability or on other assessments (Lazarus et al., 2021; National Center on Educational Outcomes, n.d.).
This report presents the findings of an analysis of states’ FFY 2021 SSIPs that examined how students who participate in the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) were included in states’ SiMRs. This study was guided by the following research questions:
- How is the AA-AAAS, and the students who participate in it, included in SiMR statements?
- How many states included results from their state’s AA-AAAS as a data source for the SiMR measure?
- To what extent did states explicitly engage stakeholders representing students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who participate in the AA-AAAS in the development, implementation, and evaluation of their SSIP?
Method
In spring 2024, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) conducted an analysis of states’ FFY 2021 SSIP (submitted to OSEP by February 1, 2023) to learn more about how students who participated in the AA-AAAS were included in the SSIPs of states with assessment-related SiMRs.[1] The SSIPs of both regular states (e.g., Alabama, Wyoming) and unique states (e.g., Puerto Rico, Palau) were analyzed. In this report, the term “states” refers to both regular states and unique states. As with the other SPP/APR Part B (School-aged) indicators, states submit the SSIP template electronically within the APR tool. The SSIP template consists of three sections: (a) Data Analysis, (b) Phase III Implementation, Analysis, and Evaluation, and (c) Stakeholder Engagement. For each state that had an assessment-related SiMR, a researcher reviewed each section of the SSIP and recorded the following information into a data collection sheet:
- SiMR statement;
- Population of students with IEPS included in the SSIP;
- Data source for the SiMR measure;
- Infrastructure improvements included in the SSIP;
- Evidence-based programs or practices implemented through the SSIP;
- Information about the stakeholders whom the state engaged in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the SSIP.
Once data were collected, they were entered into a spreadsheet and coded for reference to students who take the AA-AAAS. It was also coded if there were specific references to the engagement of stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, families) representing students who participate in the AA-AAAS in the development, implementation, or evaluation of the SSIP.
To help ensure data accuracy, training was provided to the researchers conducting the analysis concerning the population of students who take the AA-AAAS, the SSIP/SiMR, how to locate the FFY 2021 SPP/APR, where to find the information in the SSIP, and how to complete the data collection instrument. During data collection, the researchers met together weekly to discuss the data collection activity and to resolve any questions about the data collection. After the data were compiled and coded, the researchers analyzed and summarized the findings.
Results
As shown in Figure 1, 42 of the 60 regular and unique states had an assessment-related SiMR in FFY 2021. For additional details and specifications see Appendix A.
Figure 1. Number of States’ Various SiMR Focus, FFY 2021
N=60 states
Included
As indicated in Figure 2, the SSIPs of seven (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Connecticut, Delaware, Guam, Nebraska, Palau, Vermont) of the 42 states with assessment-related SiMRs indicated that data from the AA-AAAS was included in the SiMR measure.
Figure 2. Number of States that Include AA-AAAS Data in SiMR Measure
N=42 states
The SiMR statement of only one state (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) specifically mentioned the AA-AAAS. It said:
By June 30, 2026, at least 39% of 3rd grade students with an IEP in the elementary schools will perform at or above reading proficiency against grade level and alternate academic achievement standards.
The other states that included data for students who participated in the AA-AAAS in their SiMR measure had SiMR statements that were inclusive of all students with disabilities. For example, Delaware’s SiMR says:
To increase the literacy proficiency of students with disabilities in K-3rd grade, as measured by a decrease in the percentage of third grade students with disabilities scoring below proficiency on Delaware’s statewide assessments.
Connecticut is another example of a state that includes all students with disabilities, including those who participated in the AA-AAAS, in its SiMR statement:
Increase the reading performance of all third-grade students with disabilities (SWDs) statewide, as measured by Connecticut’s English Language Arts (ELA) Performance Index.
Excluded
No state explicitly excluded students who take the AA-AAAS or were in disability categories commonly associated with students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (e.g., autism, intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities) in its SiMR statement; however, some states indicated in their SiMR statement that their SiMR measure only used data from their general or regular assessment. For example, the South Dakota SiMR said:
All students with disabilities and a subset of students with disabilities (i.e., specific learning disability, other health impairment, and speech-language impairment) will increase their 3rd-5th grade reading proficiency rates by 5 percentage points from spring 2021 to spring 2026 as measured by the regular statewide assessment.
Lack of Clarity
For all states with assessment-related SiMRs, it was possible to determine whether data for students who participated in the AA-AAAS were included in outcome measures, though the process for figuring this out was convoluted in a few cases. In those states, neither the SiMR statement nor the information about data sources clearly indicated who was included or excluded, but information about the data sources was included elsewhere in the SSIP (e.g., table column headings; information about names of performance level descriptors). The Arizona SSIP provides an example of a state where the text was a bit murky. The Arizona SiMR said:
By FFY 2025, targeted Public Education Agencies (PEAs) will increase the performance of SSIP students with disabilities in grade 3 on the English Language Arts (ELA) state assessment from 9.58% to 12.23%.
Arizona’s SSIP said that the data source was:
ELA assessment data for Students with Disabilities (SWD) in grade 3, specific to the SSIP-cohort, from Arizona’s data Systems.
Arizona’s SSIP also indicated that the target data were:
The number of grade 3 students with disabilities within SSIP cohort PEAs, receiving a score of Minimally proficient, Partially Proficient, Proficient, or Highly Proficient, on the ELA component of the state assessment.
“Minimally proficient,” “Partially Proficient,” “Proficient,” and “Highly Proficient” are performance level descriptors used for Arizona’s general assessment, the Arizona Academic Standards Assessment (AASA). (The performance level descriptors used for Arizona’s alternate assessment are Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4) (Arizona Department of Education, 2024). Based on this information it was possible to deduce that Arizona does not include students who participate in the AA-AAAS.
Infrastructure Improvements, Evidence-based Programs or Practices, and Stakeholders
Very few states provided any information in the infrastructure improvement, evidence-based practices, and stakeholder involvement sections of the SSIP that addressed students who participated in the AA-AAAS. Delaware was the only state that specifically described an infrastructure improvement strategy that was inclusive of, or focused on, students who participate in the AA-AAAS. The Delaware initiative Systematic Processes for Enhancing and Assessing Communication Supports (SPEACS) was designed to assist school teams in progressing students from pre-symbolic and emergent communication to symbolic communication. SPEACS focused on training teams to work with targeted students with complex communication needs who participated in the state’s AA-AAAS. SPEACS was also aligned with the state’s Literacy Plan professional learning activities and supported literacy efforts for all Delaware students.
The Texas SSIP addressed students with the most significant cognitive disabilities when describing the implementation of evidence-based practices described in their SSIP:
Statewide leadership and support to increase the capacity of LEAs and families to meet the needs of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Revised and updated existing Trainer of Trainers into an online format with the addition of engaging user activities, including pre- and post-tests for teaching literacy to students with significant cognitive disability.
There did not appear to be alignment across the population of students included in the Texas SiMR, data used for the SiMR measure, and implementation of evidence-based activities. Students who took the AA-AAAS were addressed in the description of how evidenced-based activities were implemented; however, Texas’ SiMR statement, SiMR measure, and data source of the SiMR measure made no mention of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities or AA-AAAS, and its data table column headings clearly indicated that data were included only for students taking the general assessment.
None of the states with assessment-related SiMRs reported that they explicitly engaged stakeholders representing students with the most significant disabilities in the development, implementation, and evaluation of their SSIP. Even in states that included the AA-AAAS in their SiMR statement or SiMR measure, information about stakeholders was general in nature. For example, Nebraska, a state that included data from students who participate in the AA-AAAS, stated that:
Specific to the development of the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR), Nebraska established a broad-based stakeholder group called the RDA Stakeholder Group. The RDA Stakeholder Group includes representation from the following: parents, special education directors, special education staff, general education administrators (principals, superintendents), institutions of higher education, NDE teams (Office of Accountability, Accreditation, and Program Approval; School Improvement; Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment), community agencies, nonpublic schools, the Nebraska State Education Association, and the Nebraska Association of Special Education Supervisors. The RDA stakeholder group also worked closely with the Special Education Advisory Council and the Results Matter Nebraska Task Force to analyze and review data to assist in making changes to the SSIP in relation to the SiMR data, interim measures of progress, and any needed changes to infrastructure and programmatic activities, along with any changes needed to the targets within each indicator.
Discussion
A key reason that the U.S. Department of Education shifted to RDA in 2014 was to improve academic outcomes for students with disabilities while maintaining high levels of compliance with IDEA. In 2020, OSEP released a new SPP/APR measurement package for FFY 2020–2025 which required states to set new targets for their SPP indicators (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). In their FFY 2020 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2022, states provided measurable and rigorous targets (expressed as percentages) for each of the six years from FFY 2020 through FFY 2025. As part of the FFY 2020-25 cycle, states for the first time were given the option to use two targets to measure progress towards their SiMR.
The findings of the analysis presented in this report provide insight into how states included students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and AA-AAAS in their SSIPs. Out of the 42 states with an assessment-related SiMR, only seven states (17%) included scores from the AA-AAAS as a data source for their outcome measure. For all states, it was possible to tell whether data for students who participated in the AA-AAAS were included in outcome measures; however, in a few cases the data sources were not clearly stated. For example, in the SSIP description of data sources, one state did not indicate which assessments were included as data sources, but did indicate in table column headings which assessments were included as data sources. States may want to consider reviewing their SSIP and making sure that the data sources are described with clarity.
Students who participate in the AA-AAAS are frequently excluded from participation in the SSIP special education improvement initiative. States that do not include students who participate in the AA-AAAS in their SSIP may want to consider why these students were excluded and whether there is a need to create more inclusive SSIPs that help ensure that all students with disabilities benefit from this educational improvement initiative.
References
- Arizona Department of Education. (2024). Assessments. https://www.azed.gov/assessment
- Lazarus, S. S., Hayes, S. A., Nagle, K., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., Dosedel, M., Quanbeck, M., & Olson, R. (2021). The role of assessment data in state systemic improvement plans (SSIPs): An analysis of FFY 2018 SSIPs (NCEO Report 425). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport425.pdf
- National Center on Educational Outcomes. (n.d.). Assessment SSIPs/SiMRs. https://nceo.info/state_policies/policy/SSIPsSIMRs
- U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). State performance plans (SPP) letters and annual performance report (APR) letters. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/spp-apr-letters
- U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Part B SPP/APR instructions. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/grantees/#SPP-APR
Appendix A
SSIP Analysis
Table A-1. SiMRs of States with Assessment-related SiMRs, FFY 2021 SSIPs, Data Sources, and Inclusion of Data for Students Who Take AA-AAAS
State | SiMR | Data Source | AA-AAAS mentioned in SiMR | Data Included for Students Who Take the AA-AAAS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
American Samoa | To increase the percentage of students with disabilities who will be proficient in reading as measured by Standard Based Assessment (SBA) in the third grade (3rd grade) on all elementary schools. | NA | No | No |
Arizona | By FFY 2025, targeted Public Education Agencies (PEAs) will increase the performance of SSIP students with disabilities in grade 3 on the English Language Arts (ELA) state assessment from 9.58% to 12.23%. | Provide the data source for State ELA assessment data for Students with Disabilities (SWD) in grade 3, specific to the SSIP-cohort, from Arizona’s data Systems Target Data: “The number of grade 3 students with disabilities within SSIP cohort PEAs, receiving a score of Minimally proficient, Partially Proficient, Proficient, or Highly Proficient, on the ELA component of the state assessment.” Note: According to state website, these proficiency categories are the ones used for the general assessment (AASA); MSAA is scored as Level 1,2,3,4 - https://www.azed.gov/assessment | No | No |
Arkansas | The State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) is the percent of students with disabilities (SWD) in grades 3-5, from the targeted schools, whose value-added score (VAS) in reading is moderate or high for the same subject and grade level in the state. | Only students with value added scores (VAS) for RLA are included. The SiMR is comprised of value-added growth scores for students with multiple years of data on the regular assessment. | No | No |
California | California’s State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) addresses plans for improving outcomes for students with disabilities (SWD). California’s State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) is the performance of all SWD who took the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress in both English Language Arts and Mathematics. | The data for California’s SSIP comes from the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress in both English Language Arts and Mathematics from the FFY 2021 school year. | No | No |
Colorado | Colorado students in grades K-3 who are identified at the beginning of the school year as Well Below Benchmark according to the DIBELS Next Assessment, will significantly improve their reading proficiency as indicated by a decrease in the percentage of students who are identified at the end of the school year as Well Below Benchmark | Acadience (DIBELS Next). | No | No |
Common-wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) | By June 30, 2026, at least 39% of 3rd grade students with an IEP in the elementary schools will perform at or above reading proficiency against grade level and alternate academic achievement. | For SY21-22, the CNMI Public School System (PSS) Renaissance STAR Reading (K-3) assessment proficiency data from the end of the year outcomes and the Multi-state Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards. | Yes | Yes |
Connecticut | Increase the reading performance of all third-grade students with disabilities (SWDs) statewide, as measured by Connecticut’s English Language Arts (ELA) Performance Index. | Statewide ELA summative assessments: the Smarter Balanced (SB) Assessment and the Connecticut Alternate Assessment (CTAA), administered statewide to students in Grades 3-8 and 11 in the spring of 2022. The methodology for calculating the ELA Performance Index starts by taking the scale score on the statewide ELA assessments: the Smarter Balanced (SB) Assessment and the Connecticut Alternate Assessment (CTAA), administered statewide each spring, and converting that scale score into an appropriate index point value that ranges from 0 to 110 (the individual performance index). | No | Yes |
Delaware | To increase the literacy proficiency of students with disabilities in K-3rd grade, as measured by a decrease in the percentage of third grade students with disabilities scoring below proficiency on Delaware’s statewide assessments. | Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Delaware System of Student Assessment - Alternate (DeSSA - Alt)4 | No | Yes |
Federated States of Micronesia | Increase English literacy skills of all students in ECE [early childhood education] through Grade 5 in the FSM, with a particular focus on students identified as having a disability. | As described in FSM’s SSIP Phase I, the selection of FSM’s SIMR was determined through the review of baseline data collected from all grade levels at the four original pilot elementary schools within Project LIFT (Literacy Intervention for FSM Leaders of Tomorrow). The Project LIFT Assessment System includes various curriculum-based measures at each grade level, ECE through Grade 5. Many, although not all, of these assessments include measures from the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) a series of procedures and measures for assessment of the acquisition of a set of K-8 literacy skills developed and researched at the University of Oregon | No | No |
Guam | There will be an increased percent of students with disabilities in the 3rd grade that will be proficient in reading in the four participating schools as measured by the district-wide assessment. | The data source for the FFY 2021 data is the district-wide assessment results for the FFY 2021 (SY2021-2022) assessments which include the ACT Aspire and the Multi-State Alternate Assessment (MSAA) based on Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAAS) for students with significant cognitive disabilities, conducted in Spring 2022. | No | Yes |
Hawaii | The Hawaii State Department of Education (Department) SiMR is the improvement of English Language Arts (ELA)/Literacy outcomes for students with disabilities (SWD) identified in the categories of Other Health Disability (OHD), Specific Learning Disability (SLD), and Speech or Language Disability (SoL) in grades 3 and 4. The Department’s key measure (proficiency) for the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) is the percentage of 3rd and 4th-grade students, combined, with eligibility categories of OHD, SLD, and SoL who are proficient on the Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) for ELA/Literacy. | Department SY 2021-2022 Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) | No | No |
Idaho | Increase the percent of fourth-grade students with disabilities in Idaho who will be proficient in literacy as measured on the state summative assessment, currently ISAT by Smarter Balanced. | The data source for the FFY 2021 data is the Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT), by Smarter Balanced. | No | No |
Illinois | The percentage of 4th grade students with disabilities who are proficient or above the grade level standard on the state English-language arts assessment will increase. | The data source is the same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using EDFacts file specification FS178. Specifically, ISBE analyzes data from the Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR) to determine how many 4th grade children with IEPs scored at or above proficient on this regular assessment. | No | No |
Indiana | Indiana will increase reading proficiency achievement on the Indiana Reading Evaluation and Determination (IREAD-3) assessment by at least .5% each year for all third grade students, including those with disabilities attending elementary schools participating in the Indiana SSIP Initiatives. | The data source for the FFY 2021 data is state reading assessment (IREAD-3) results for the participating school. | No | No |
Iowa | Decrease the percentage of students with IEPs in grades kindergarten through 3rd grade identified as high risk on a literacy assessment. | FastBridge literacy screening assessments, early Reading and CMBr English. FastBridge combines Computer Adaptive Tests (CAT) and Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) to screen students, identify skill gaps, and offer proven recommendations for reading instruction and diagnostic reading interventions. | No | No |
Kansas | Increased percentage of students with disabilities in grades K–5 who achieve a rate of improvement in reading at or higher than the expected growth for their grade-level peers. | The data source is the Curriculum-Based Measure General Outcome Measure (CBM-GOM) utilized within each school. In FFY 2021, all schools in the SiMR cohort administered the FastBridge Reading assessment in second through fifth grades and the Early Reading assessment in kindergarten and first grades. | No | No |
Kentucky | To increase the percentage of students with disabilities performing at or above proficient in middle school math, specifically at the 8th-grade level, with emphasis on reducing novice performance, by providing professional learning, technical assistance and support to elementary and middle school teachers around implementing, scaling and sustaining Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and evidence-based practices (EBP) in math. | Same data used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using EDFacts file specifications FS175 and 178. The SiMR uses the Kentucky Summative Assessment (KSA) data to measure the percent of students with disabilities performing at or above proficiency in math at the eighth-grade level. | No | No |
Louisiana | Louisiana’s SiMR is to increase ELA proficiency rates on statewide assessments for students with disabilities in third through fifth grades, in eight school systems (SSIP cohort) across the state. | The data source used is LEAP 2025 statewide ELA assessments for grades 3-5. | No | No |
Maine | Students in grades 3–8 with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) will demonstrate improved math proficiency as measured by math scores on the statewide Maine Educational Assessment (MEA). Maine reports proficiency as follows: Percent = number of grade 3–8 students with IEPs who demonstrate proficiency in math divided by the number of grade 3–8 students with IEPs who are evaluated on the math assessment. | Maine began using a new statewide math assessment (NWEA) in the 2020-2021 school year. Because the statewide assessment changed last year (FFY2020), proficiency rates based on the statewide assessment for FFY2020 constituted a new baseline. | No | No |
Maryland | In grades 3, 4, and 5 mathematics proficiency of students with disabilities will increase and the performance gap will narrow. | Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAP) serves as the data source. SiMR data come from grade-level results on the Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAP) exam in mathematics. | No | No |
Michigan | The focus of the State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR) is on literacy progress for students with the most significant and persistent reading needs (below the 20th percentile on screening measures), including students with disabilities. The SiMR is currently measured using Acadience Reading K-6 universal screening and progress monitoring scores matched to students’ grade and skill level (e.g., phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency— correct letter sounds and whole words read, oral reading fluency—words correct and accuracy). In future years, the SiMR may be measured using a variety of screening and progress monitoring measures based on what Michigan districts are using. The SiMR is represented as a long-term outcome in the evaluation plan logic model and goal 2. | Acadience Reading K-6 universal screening fall and spring composite scores, fall to spring pathways of progress based on the composite scores, and weekly progress monitoring scores. | No | No |
Mississippi | Increase the percentage of third grade students with Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and Language/Speech (LS) rulings in targeted districts who score proficient or higher on the general statewide reading assessment to 32 percent by FFY 2025. | Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) English Language Arts. | No | No |
Missouri | Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level academic achievement standards in grades three through eight and high school in English/language arts (ELA) in LEAs participating in District Continuous Improvement (DCI) work. | Regular grade level and high school end of course state assessment data. | No | No |
Nebraska | Nebraska’s State-Identified Measurable Result is to increase the reading proficiency for students with disabilities at the 4th grade level as measured by the statewide reading assessment. | Data comes from the same source as Indicator 3 (NSCAS proficiency scores for 4th grade students who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for both students with IEPs against grade level academic achievement standards and proficiency rate for children with IEPs against alternate academic achievement standards. [NSCAS Alternate Summative Assessment] | No | Yes |
Nevada | The Nevada Department of Education will improve the performance of third-grade students with disabilities in Clark County School District on statewide assessments of reading/language arts through building the school district’s capacity to strengthen the skills of special education teachers in assessment, instructional planning, and teaching. | Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessment administered in Spring 2022. | No | No |
New Jersey | By utilizing targeted and comprehensive school data and the Implementation Science framework to identify schools, New Jersey will establish literacy “Transformation Zones” that receive intensive coaching and support in early reading. By 2027, New Jersey will increase the percentage of students with IEPs in the Transformation Zone schools who score at or above benchmark on a district-selected literacy assessment tool by a minimum of 10% (compared to baseline) by the end of their third-grade year. | The New Jersey Student Learning Assessments for English Language Arts (NJSLA-ELA) measures student proficiency with grade-level skills, knowledge, and concepts that are critical to college and career readiness. | No | No |
New Mexico | Increase the reading proficiency of students with disabilities in second grade, as measured by statewide standardized reading assessments. | The FFY 2021 data source was the end of year (EOY) Istation data reporting from the Accountability Office of the New Mexico Public Education Department. | No | No |
New York | For students classified as students with learning disabilities in SSIP Pilot Schools (grades three through five), increase the percent of students scoring at proficiency levels 2 and above on the New York grades three through eight English Language Arts (ELA) assessment. | New York grades three through eight ELA Assessment data reports from NYSED’s Information and Reporting Services (IRS) (see https://datanysed.gov/). NYSED receives student assessment data as reported to its statewide data warehouse, the Student Information Repository System. This data is aggregated for the SSIP cohort of schools for the following groups of students: all students in grades three through five, general education students in grades three through five, students with disabilities in grades three through five, and students classified with learning disabilities in grades three through five. | No | No |
North Carolina | NC will reduce the 6.83% point gap between students of color (SoC) with disabilities (4.19% career and college ready; CCR) and white students with disabilities (11.02% CCR) by 90% in the 40 public school units (PSUs) with <25% all-student proficiency in 4th grade reading that opted-in as SiMR Support partner PSUs. | Data source for FFY 2021 - 2021-22 4th Grade End of Grade Reading data for SiMR Opt-In PSUs. | No | No |
Oklahoma | By FFY 2025, Oklahoma will see improved early literacy skills for K-3 students in targeted low-performing schools as identified by the state’s ESSA plan. | The data source for the SiMR is the aggregated dataset of benchmark results on pre-approved screeners that assess reading skills in grades kindergarten through third. All elementary sites submit this data annually to the SEA. | No | No |
Oregon | To increase the percentage of third grade students with disabilities reading at grade level, as measured by State assessment. | Grade three Smarter Balanced ELA assessment. | No | No |
Palau | Increased percentage of students with and without disabilities in grades 1-3 in the target school performing at the proficient level in ROP’s state-wide assessments for Reading. | The data source has changed from the Palau English Reading Assessment (PERA) to ROP’s state-wide assessments (IOWA and the portfolio system for the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS)). The Special Education Program supports the schools to implement the AA-AAAS for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The AA-AAAS portfolio system is implemented by the special education teacher most familiar with the student. The scoring and interpretation of results are facilitated by the Special Education Program. | No | Yes |
Puerto Rico | PRDE’s State Identified Measurable Results (SIMR) criteria is to increase the percentage (%) of special education students in the 5th grade who score proficient or advanced on the math regular assessment in the participating schools (all elementary schools from the former Yabucoa School District). PRDE’s SIMR is aligned in accordance with APR Indicator 3 and focuses on improving the performance of students with disabilities on the Puerto Rico Assessment System, called Measurement and Evaluation for Academic Transformation of Puerto Rico (META-PR). | The data source to be used would come from SY 2021-22 Assessment Data Groups – Math (EDFacts file spec FS175). PRDE’s SIMR is aligned in accordance with APR Indicator 3 and focuses on improving the performance of students with disabilities on the Puerto Rico Assessment System, called Measurement and Evaluation for Academic Transformation of Puerto Rico (META-PR). | No | No |
Rhode Island | K-8 students with disabilities will demonstrate improved mathematics achievement, as measured by an increased percentage of 8th grade students with disabilities demonstrating typical or high growth on the math statewide assessment—from 33% to 59% by FFY 2025. | RICAS math state assessment student growth percentile data from spring 2022, spring 2021, and spring 2019 administrations. | No | No |
South Carolina | The SiMR is academic proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) for students with disabilities in grades 4-8, as measured by SC Ready, South Carolina’s statewide assessment. Per the theory of action, it is expected that students with disabilities whose teachers have completed online learning management system (LMS) coursework will show a higher rate of growth in ELA performance than students whose teachers have not completed the coursework. | Group A is the treatment group, and Group B is the control group. There are no data to report. Per the FFY2020 submission, SiMR data would be reported comparing student academic outcomes of treatment (Group A: Students with disabilities whose teachers completed the LMS coursework) and control groups (Group B: Students with disabilities whose teachers did not complete the LMS coursework) (i.e., teacher’s LMS course completion serving as the independent variable). During the reporting period, the SSIP was not implemented as intended as described at the time of the FFY2020 submission. Additionally, there exists no system developed with the ability to collect the data as described in the FFY2020 submission. For SSIP implementation schools, SC READY data for students with disabilities in grades 3-5 from the spring 2023 administration will be collected to use as baseline data to monitor the progress of implementation and inform progress toward the SiMR. | No | No |
South Dakota | All students with disabilities and a subset of students with disabilities (i.e., specific learning disability, other health impairment, and speech-language impairment) will increase their 3rd-5th grade reading proficiency rates by 5 percentage points from spring 2021 to spring 2026 as measured by the regular statewide assessment. | Data for this indicator is collected through the SD English Language Arts regular statewide assessment for grades 3-5. | No | No |
Tennessee | In Phase I, Tennessee identified a SiMR of increasing by one percent annually the percent of students with a specific learning disability (SLD) in grades 3-8 scoring at or above Basic (since renamed “Approaching”) on the statewide English/language arts (ELA) assessment. Evaluation activities were developed by the department to track progress toward and achievement of this ambitious but achievable goal. | The student level statewide assessment file used to populate EDFacts files FS185 and FS188 is the source of TNReady English Language Arts performance levels for students in grades 3-8. | No | No |
Texas | Increase the reading proficiency rate for all children with disabilities in grades 4, 8, and HS (as measured by combining the state assessment results for grades 4, 8, and End of Course exams in Reading Achievement against grade level standards, with or without accommodations). | SY 2021-22 Assessment Data Groups - Reading (EDFacts file spec FS178; Data Group: 584) combined totals. | No | No |
U.S. Virgin Islands | The Virgin Islands Department of Education (VIDE), State Office of Special Education’s (SOSE) State Identified Measurable Results (SiMR), is to increase the percentage of third-grade students with disabilities who score proficient or above on state-wide reading and language assessments. | Students in grades 3 through 8 and 11 were tested to ascertain their academic performance on reading, language arts, and math assessments. Additionally, the territory-wide general assessments in English Language Arts (ELA) and math (Smarter Balanced ELA and math), in this instance, ELA are administered to students in an online format except for those students that require large print or braille booklets based on their Individualized Education Program (IEP). | No | No |
Vermont | To improve the proficiency of mathematics performance for students with disabilities in grades 3, 4, and 5. | Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and Vermont Alternate Assessment (VTAA). | No | Yes |
Wisconsin | The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (WDPI) State-Identified Measurable Result (SiMR) focuses on early literacy, operationally defined as the percentage of learners with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) participating in the Implementation Zone (IZ) with a score of “Proficient” or higher on the English Language Arts section of the state Forward exam, Wisconsin’s required statewide assessment. We will calculate scores for learners in Grade 3 and an average of scores across Grades 3-5. | The data come from the English Language Arts (ELA) score of the Wisconsin state assessment, the Forward Exam, for learners with IEPs in Grades 3-5. | No | No |
Wyoming | The percentage of third grade students with disabilities will increase their state test reading proficiency from 23.63% in 2017-18 to 29.00% in 2025-26. | WY-TOPP state assessment. | No | No |
Total | 1 | 7 |
Table A-2. Assessments Used to Measure SiMR Outcomes and Progress by State, FFY 2021
State | Content Area | State Assessment Used for Accountability: General Assessment | State Assessment Used for Accountability: AA-AAAS | Other Assessments: General Assessment | Other Assessments: Alternate Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
American Samoa | Reading | Standards Based Assessment (SBA) | No | NA | NA |
Arizona | ELA | Arizona Academic Standards Assessment (AASA) [1] | Multi-state Alternate Assessment (MSAA) | NA | NA |
Arkansas | Reading | ACT Aspire [2] | No | NA | NA |
California | ELA, Math | California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress | No | NA | NA |
Colorado | Reading | NA | NA | DIBELS Next Assessment | No |
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) | Reading | No | Multi-state Alternate Assessment (MSAA) [3] | Renaissance STAR Reading (K-3) Assessment | No |
Connecticut | ELA | Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) | Connecticut Alternate Assessment (CTAA) | NA | NA |
Delaware | ELA | Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBA) | Delaware System of Student Assessment Alternate (DeSSA - Alt) [4] | NA | NA |
Federated States of Micronesia | Literacy | NA | NA | Curriculum-based measures (Project LIFT Assessment System); DIBELS | No |
Guam | Reading | ACT Aspire | Multi-state Alternate Assessment (MSAA) | NA | NA |
Hawaii | ELA | Smarter Balanced Assessments (SBA) | No | NA | NA |
Idaho | ELA | Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) by Smarter Balanced Assessments (SBA) | No | NA | NA |
Illinois | ELA | Illinois Assessment of Readiness (IAR) | No | NA | NA |
Indiana | Reading | Indiana Reading Evaluation and Determination (IREAD-3) | No | NA | NA |
Iowa | Literacy | NA | NA | FastBridge literacy screening assessments, early Reading and CMBr English | No |
Kansas | Reading | NA | NA | Curriculum-Based Measure General Outcome Measure (CBM-GOM): FastBridge Reading assessment (Grades 2-5); Early Reading assessment (Grades K- 1) | No |
Kentucky | Math | Kentucky Summative Assessment (KSA) | No | NA | NA |
Louisiana | ELA | Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) | No | NA | NA |
Maine | Math | Maine Educational Assessment (MEA)/ NWEA [5] | No | NA | NA |
Maryland | Math | Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAP) | No | NA | NA |
Michigan | Reading | No | No | Acadience Reading K-6 | No |
Mississippi | ELA | Mississippi Academic Assessment Program (MAAP) | No | NA | NA |
Missouri | ELA | Missouri Assessment Program, including high school end of course assessments [6] | No | NA | NA |
Nebraska | ELA | Nebraska Student-Centered Assessment System (NSCAS) | Nebraska Student-Centered Assessment System Alternate (NSCAS Alternate) | NA | NA |
Nevada | ELA | Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) | No | NA | NA |
New Jersey | ELA | The New Jersey Student Learning Assessments (NJSLA) | No | Start Strong Assessments | No |
New Mexico | Reading | NA | NA | Istation | No |
New York | ELA | New York State Assessment | No | NA | NA |
North Carolina | Reading | North Carolina End of Grade (EOG) test | No | NA | NA |
Oklahoma | Reading | NA | NA | Benchmark results on pre-approved screeners | No |
Oregon | ELA | Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) | No | NA | NA |
Palau | Reading | Palau English Reading Assessment (PERA) [7] | Portfolio system for the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards6 | Iowa Assessments | No |
Puerto Rico | Math | Measurement and Evaluation for Academic Transformation of Puerto Rico (META-PR) | No | NA | NA |
Rhode Island | ELA | Rhode Island Comprehensive Assessment System (RICAS) | No | NA | NA |
South Carolina | ELA | SC Ready | No | NA | NA |
South Dakota | ELA | South Dakota English Language Arts Assessment | No | NA | NA |
Tennessee | ELA | TNReady | No | NA | NA |
Texas | Reading | State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR) [8] | No | NA | NA |
U.S. Virgin Islands | ELA | Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) | No | NA | NA |
Vermont | Math | Smarter Balanced Assessment (SBA) | Vermont Alternate Assessment (VTAA) [9] | NA | NA |
Wisconsin | ELA | Forward Exam | No | NA | NA |
Wyoming | Reading | Wyoming Test of Proficiency and Progress (WY-TOPP) | No | NA | NA |
Note: ELA = English language arts
All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Nagle, K., Lazarus, S. S., Mottesi, G., Quanbeck, M., & Hinkle, A. R. (2025). How students who take the AA-AAAS are included in State Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs): An analysis of FFY 2021 SSIPs (NCEO Report 449). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
The Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G210002) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. Consistent with EDGAR §75.62, the contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officer: David Egnor
In collaboration with:
NCEO Core Staff
Andrew R. Hinkle, Co-Director
Kristi K. Liu, Co-Director
Jessica Bowman
Gail Ghere
Linda Goldstone
Michael L. Moore
Darrell Peterson
Mari Quanbeck
Virginia A. Ressa
Kathy Strunk
Yi-Chen Wu
National Center on Educational Outcomes
University of Minnesota
2025 East River Parkway, Room 1-330
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Phone 612/626-1530
The University of Minnesota shall provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
This document is available in alternative formats upon request.
NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration