Accounting for the performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments

signaled a new era in accountability for students with disabil-ities. While the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA, 2001) required that students with disabilities participate in state and local assessments and that results be reported, the IDEA did not require that the re-sults be factored into accountability indexes (McLaughlin & Thurlow, 2003). Even after passage of the 1997 amendments, state policies regarding the performance of students with dis-abilities were either dismissive (e.g., assessment exemptions were permitted) or undermining (e.g., scores were not included in accountability indexes because of the use of accommoda-tions or alternate assessments; Elliott, Erickson, Thurlow, & Shriner, 2000; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Robey, 2002). The NCLBA has reinforced the necessity of including all stu-dents in state assessments and created the mandate for uni-versal accountability. The act and accompanying regulations require states to have a single accountability system that is based on challenging content and achievement standards in reading, language arts, and science in Grades 3 through 8. In addition, states must have an assessment that is aligned with the grade-level standards, and the results of those assessments must be reported in terms of the proportion of students who performed at basic, proficient, and advanced levels. Results must also be disaggregated and reported by specific subgroups of students, including five major racial and ethnic groups, pov-erty, English language learners (ELL), and disability. As part of the accountability requirements of the NCLBA, states must establish annual performance objectives for each subgroup of students that enable all students to reach the state standard of proficiency or advanced on the state assessments withi