Proponents of out-of-level testing generally contend that there are three benefits for students with disabilities: (1) undue test frustration is avoided; (2) test measurement accuracy is improved; and (3) test items are better matched to students' current educational goals and instructional level (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 1999). It is often thought that testing students with disabilities on the grade level of enrollment in school is actually unfair. Taken to its extreme, students can be traumatized by being forced to dwell on test items for which they do not have the academic skills. On the other hand, opponents of out-of-level testing contend the following: (1) testing students below their grade of enrollment does not match the system accountability purpose of a statewide assessment; (2) lower grade level testing reflects teachers', family members', and students' lower expectations for academic learning, and (3) the resulting instruction over time will focus on lower-level standards than those that the student could be striving to acquire (Thurlow et al., 1999). By continuing to test a student out of level from one school year to the next, a student may lose important opportunities to learn so that the student's true learning potential may never be known. The purpose of this research was to document the pro and con arguments that surround out-of-level testing. A survey to describe teachers' and administrators' perceptions and opinions about out-of-level testing when testing students with disabilities in states' large-scale assessment programs that are used for accountability purposes was conducted. The survey was distributed in four states at state-level teacher and administrator meetings and training sessions. Survey results were presented on a state by state basis by treating each subgroup of the sample as a separate data set. [This report was sponsored by a grant from the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs]