The NSAA National Profile reports on the development and implementation of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards across the 50 states and the District of Columbia for the 2006–07 school year. The report presents summaries of individual state data tables and graphically highlights percentages on the status of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards.
Data were collected in 2006 and 2007 through a process involving detailed analysis of state documents. In particular, submissions to the U.S. Department of Education's Standards and Assessments Peer Review process served as the primary data source. Structured telephone interviews with knowledgeable informants in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia were also conducted to gather information that could not be gleaned from the analysis of state documents. For simplicity, the District of Columbia is considered one of the 51 "states." The Standards and Assessments Peer Review process and data collection, verification, and analysis procedures are described in appendix A. The data collected were of four types: yes/no items, multiple-choice items, closed-ended text (such as the name of the assessment and number of content standards addressed), and open-ended responses. Open-ended responses were coded into categories. This report does not reflect any updates that may have occurred since data collection activities ended in September 2007. A number of states had begun reworking their alternate assessments at that time, often in response to feedback from the Standards and Assessments Peer Review process, so their current and future alternate assessments may differ from the information presented in these reports.
The NSAA National Profile report contains the following five sections:
The primary source of data for the NSAA profiles was an in depth review of documents submitted to the U.S. Department of Education in response to the Standards and Assessment Peer Review process and information pertaining to the alternate assessments on state websites. The study team also conducted structured telephone interviews with knowledgeable informants in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These interviews were not systematic surveys. Rather, they were conducted to verify the results of document review and to collect data that could not be collected from administrative records. The study methodology is presented in appendix A and collected data are presented in appendix B.