The Participation and Performance of Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders in a State Accountability Assessment in Reading Catherine Carr-George, Kimberly J. Vannest, Victor Willson, and John L. Davis Texas A&M University ABSTRACT: This study examined the participation rates and performance of students classified with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) in a statewide reading assessment. Gender, ethnicity, cognitive ability, school-level socioeconomic status, and instructional setting are analyzed as factors correlated with performance. Findings indicate that only 56% of students with EBD participate in statewide assessment. Only 44% of those met proficiency standards. Implications relate to classification of differences by subgrouping of students with EBD. & Standards-based reform and the intention to improve academic outcomes through state accountability measures is currently under way for students with disabilities (Elliott, Erickson, Thurlow, & Shriner, 2000; Katsiyan- nis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007; Thurlow & Wiley, 2006). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has set new accountability standards for students with disabilities. These standards are guided by the assumption that instruction and educational opportunities will rise to meet these elevated expectations (Crawford & Tin- dal, 2006; Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Yssel- dyke et al., 2004). According to Ysseldyke et al. (2004), students with disabilities can perform well on statewide assessments when they are provided access to appropriate instruction. With the passage of NCLB, all states are required to include students with disabilities in statewide assessments and report the results. Adequate yearly progress require- ments specify target expectations regarding participation rates and proficiency standards for several subgroups, including students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD; Goertz, 2005; Malmgren, McLaughlin, & Nolet, 2005; Thurlow & Wiley, 2006). The participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments is controversial (Kat- siyannis et al., 2007). Barton-Atwood, Wehby, and Faulk (2005) found that academic instruc- tion is often a secondary concern for many students with EBD. These students are at a high risk to earn low grades and drop out of school and are more likely to experience unsuccessful postsecondary outcomes (Trout, Nordess, Pierce, & Epstein, 2003). Students with EBD generally exhibit academic difficulties across several content areas (Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004; Reid, Gonzalez, Nordess, Trout, & Epstein, 2004), with the most significant difficulties manifesting in the area of reading (Trout et al., 2003). Thurlow (2002) argued that the setting where a student receives instruction affects his or her ability to meet performance standards. This argument supports the premise that students with disabilities, including students with EBD, operate under lower expectations based on factors other than their academic ability (Shriner et al., 1994). Students with EBD are traditionally educated in more restrictive settings (Hosp & Reschly, 2002). This practice negatively affects the academic growth of these students (Hardman & Dawson, 2008). However, inclusion in the general education setting is difficult for students with EBD because their unique behavioral challenges are often exacerbated in the general education setting (Simpson, 2004). One method by which to focus attention on instructional outcomes is the use of state assessments or state accountability measures. Although some states report participation rates for students with disabilities in statewide assessments, there is very little information available regarding the performance of stu- dents with EBD. More data are needed to inform educators on student progress and programming (Thurlow, House, Scott, & Ys- seldyke, 2000; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Morse, 2005; Ysseldyke et al., 2004). Accountability for the academic performance of students with disabilities is most critical for 66 / November 2009 Behavioral Disorders, 35 (1), 66–78