Legislative study to probe reading, math proficiency gaps for students with disabilities

The Legislative Management study panel opened an examination of reading and mathematics proficiency among students with disabilities after Legislative Council and the Department of Public Instruction presented assessment data and study requirements. Liz Fordall, council for Legislative Council, summarized the study directive: “The study must include an examination of academic disparities, analyzing the latest student performance data on statewide reading and mathematics assessments to identify trends and disparities affecting students with disabilities.”

Why it matters: statewide and national assessments show persistent gaps between students with disabilities and peers without disabilities, and committee members pressed DPI for grade‑level breakdowns and data sources so the panel can determine whether gaps reflect instruction, measurement, access to services or other causes.

DPI emphasized that the state uses two primary measurement systems and they serve different purposes. Mary McCarville O'Connor, director of the Office of Specially Designed Services at the Department of Public Instruction, told the committee the state relies primarily on the North Dakota State Assessment (NDSA) and an alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive impairments; she said the NDSA year‑to‑year data are better for measuring progress in cohorts. Stan Schauer, assessment director for DPI, explained the difference with NAEP: “Both assessments are very important, but they do two different things,” he said, noting NAEP is a sampled, national comparability tool that does not produce individual student or school results, while the state assessment returns student‑level and district‑level results that allow year‑to‑year and growth analyses.

Committee members asked DPI to provide more granular data. Representative Murphy and others requested grade‑by‑grade breakdowns and a clearer definition of ‘‘students with disabilities’’ by disability category, noting that outcomes for students with significant cognitive impairments differ from those for students with learning disabilities. DPI agreed to provide grade‑level disaggregation and to supply more detail about the alternate assessment population and how the state counts students in accountability measures.

What the data show: Legislative Council quoted national NAEP results highlighted in the background memo showing stark gaps: for fourth graders with disabilities, NAEP results reported about half scored below basic in math (compared with a much smaller share of peers without disabilities) and roughly 80% scored below basic in reading; similar, large gaps were reported for eighth grade. DPI’s NDSA results presented to the committee showed relatively flat proficiency over recent years for students with disabilities in math and ELA, while DPI’s federally required state performance indicators include targets that the department and stakeholders set and review annually.

Assessment and interpretation issues: presenters warned the committee against simple comparisons across measures. Schauer explained that changes in assessment instruments and standard‑setting can create discontinuities: when North Dakota moved among assessments the proficiency percentages shifted because new tests and new cut scores change baselines. Committee members and DPI staff agreed that the study should include both NAEP and state assessment results, but that each should be used for its intended purpose — NAEP for interstate comparisons and the state assessment for tracking student and cohort growth and district‑level progress.

Next steps: Committee members asked DPI for (1) grade‑level proficiency breakdowns and by‑category disability counts; (2) the NAEP state profile breakdown for students with disabilities and comparison to national gaps; (3) information about how the alternate assessment is administered and how those students are included, if at all, in NAEP samples; and (4) NDSA longitudinal cohort data to allow the panel to follow cohorts across grades. DPI staff said those data are available and will be provided to the committee for follow‑up meetings.