Formerly excluded from measures of educational performance, students with disabilities (SWDs) are now explicitly recognized in federal and state accountability systems. At the national level, the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) laid the foundation for accountability for SWDs by requiring states to include these students in state and district assessments and to report their participation and performance. This requirement was further reinforced by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized in 2001, which established SWDs as an explicit student subgroup for the purpose of determining whether schools make adequate yearly progress (AYP). The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has a congressional mandate to conduct a national assessment of how well the IDEA is achieving its purposes. As part of the national assessment of IDEA, this study is intended to provide policy-relevant information about the education of SWDs by examining their inclusion in school accountability systems and by describing the use of school practices that may relate to educational outcomes for these students. This report presents descriptive information on school-level accountability, AYP performance, and school improvement status of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance under Title I of the ESEA, as well as schools not accountable for SWD subgroup performance. The association between accountability for this student subgroup and school practices will be examined in a separate study report. Specifically, this study report updates the findings from the interim report for the following research questions: (1) What percentage of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup between the 2006-07 and 2009-10 school years? (2) What percentage of different types of schools were accountable for the performance of the SWD subgroup? (3) What percentage of schools moved in and out of accountability for the performance of the SWD subgroup? (4) What percentage of schools missed AYP because of the performance of the SWD subgroup? and (5) What percentage of schools accountable for SWD subgroup performance were identified for school improvement? Thirteen tables are appended. (Contains 51 footnotes and 28 exhibits.)