Are the reported 2008–09 state assessment results for grades 4 and 8 directly comparable with the 2006–07 reported results?

State	Reading	Mathematics
Alabama	Yes.	Yes.
Alaska	Yes.	Yes.
Arizona	Yes.	Yes.
Arkansas	Yes, they can be compared. The testing contractor changed but the scales did not change.	Yes, they can be compared. The testing contractor changed but the scales did not change.
California	Yes,  the Language Arts assessment results are comparable across years. California does not have a stand-alone reading assessment.	Yes, they are comparable in grade 4. Grade level mathematics tests are administered in grades 2 through 7 and end-of-course tests are administered for Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry.
Colorado	Yes.	Yes.
Connecticut	Yes.	Yes.
Delaware	Yes.	Yes.
District of Columbia	Yes.	Yes.
Florida	Yes.	Yes.
Georgia	Yes.	No. Curriculum changed, new test developed, new standard setting conducted.
Hawaii	Yes.	Yes.
Idaho	Yes. The percent of students scoring at or above the Proficient cut-score on ISAT is not necessarily the percent reported for AYP (which may include some ISAT-Alt students who have been continuously enrolled).	Yes.
Illinois	No. In 2007-08, the ISAT had a significant increase in the number of ELL students taking the test. Test results for the overall group and some subgroups, including Hispanic and ELL students, are not comparable from 2006-07 to 2008-09 assessments. For non-ELL students, results can be validly compared. This statement is not true for the IAA. The IAA changed in 2007-08.	No. In 2007-08, the ISAT had a significant increase in the number of ELL students taking the test. Test results for the all group, and some subgroups, including Hispanic and ELL students are not comparable from 2006-07 to 2008-09. For non-ELL students results can be validly compared. This statement is not true for the IAA. The IAA changed in 2007-08.
Indiana	Yes. The 2006-07 assessment is comparable to fall 2008 assessment, but not comparable to spring 2009 assessment.	Yes. The 2006-07 assessment is comparable to fall 2008 assessment, but not comparable to spring 2009 assessment.
Iowa	Yes.	Yes.
Kansas	Yes.	Yes.
Kentucky	Yes.	Yes.
Louisiana	Yes.	Yes.
Maine	Yes.	Yes.
Maryland	Yes.	Yes.
Massachusetts	Yes.	Yes.
Michigan	Yes.	Yes.
Minnesota	Yes.	Yes.
Mississippi	No.	No.
Missouri	Yes.	Yes.
Montana	Yes.	Yes.
Nebraska	Yes.	Yes.
Nevada	Yes.	Yes.
New Hampshire	Yes.	Yes.
New Jersey	No.	No.
New Mexico	Yes.	Yes.
New York	Yes.	Yes.
North Carolina	No.	Yes. The change in retest policy affected comparability. Results were calculated with and without retest the first year retests were introduced into accountability calculations.
North Dakota	Yes.	Yes.
Ohio	Yes.	Yes.
Oklahoma	No. Oklahoma raised the performance standards.	No. Oklahoma raised the performance standards.
Oregon	Yes.	Yes.
Pennsylvania	Yes.	Yes.
Rhode Island	Yes.	Yes.
South Carolina	No.	No.
South Dakota	No.	Yes.
Tennessee	Yes.	Yes.
Texas	Yes.	Yes.
Utah	Yes.	Yes.
Vermont	Yes.	Yes.
Virginia	Yes.	Yes.
Washington	Yes. Test items used in 2009 from same item bank as 2008. 2009 assessment equated to 2008 scale. Technical Advisory Committee approved the equating.	Yes. Test items used in 2009 from same item bank as 2008. 2009 assessment equated to 2008 scale. Technical Advisory Committee approved the equating.
West Virginia	No.	No.
Wisconsin	Yes.	Yes.
Wyoming	Yes.	Yes.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2009 Survey of State Assessment.