2001 State Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations
NCEO Synthesis Report 46
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Prepared by:
Martha L. Thurlow, Sheryl Lazarus, Sandra Thompson, and Jennifer Robey
July 2002
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S., Thompson, S., & Robey, J. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html
Executive Summary
State assessment systems
continue to evolve as federal requirements change and more and more students are
included in assessment systems. The National Center on Educational Outcomes
(NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state policies on participation in
assessments and accommodations for more than a decade now. The purpose of this
analysis is to update information on these policies last conducted by NCEO in
1999.
The current analysis of states’ 2001 participation and accommodations policies
confirm that states’ policies continue to evolve, although the changes are not
as dramatic as in the past. Among the major findings from this analysis are:
• Participation options beyond the usual three (participation without
accommodations, participation with accommodations, alternate assessment) have
become more evident — generally these are: partial participation, additional
alternate assessments, and out-of-level testing.
• "Emotional anxiety" is noted by many more states than previously as a reason
for students to not participate in assessments.
• Policies for both participation and accommodations are becoming more specific.
This is particularly evident in accommodation policies. These clarifications
sometimes indicate the implications for scores, specifically whether they will
be aggregated with other scores.
• Five states allow accommodations for all students. Additional states allow
some accommodations to be used with all students (generally setting and
scheduling accommodations), and one state allows accommodations to continue to
be used with students who are no longer on IEPs.
• The most controversial accommodations continue to be read aloud, calculator,
and scribe.
Our analyses of state policies and guidelines suggest that states have continued
to adjust their policies to ensure that students with disabilities have
opportunities to participate in statewide assessments, and at the same time to
understand the meaning of the scores from their assessments.
Overview
Statewide assessment systems continue to be a key component of educational
accountability at the federal and state levels. Since all students now must
participate in state assessment systems, there is continued interest in policies
that determine the ways in which students participate (e.g., general assessment
or alternate assessment), and the treatment of accommodations in testing (e.g.,
allowed or not allowed, reported, etc.). Both the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act reauthorized in 1997, and the Title I provisions of the No Child
Left Behind Act reauthorized in 2001, mention participation and accommodations
for students with disabilities (see Table 1).
The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has tracked information on
state participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities
since 1990, with the most recent analysis examining 1999 policies (Thurlow,
House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000). Each time that NCEO has examined state
policies (1993–Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993; 1995–Thurlow, Scott, &
Ysseldyke, 1995a, b; 1997–Thurlow, Seyfarth, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1997;
1999–Thurlow, House, et al., 2000), there have been significant changes from the
time before.
In the early years, the changes in policies were most often reflected in
increases in number of states with policies–adding states that previously had no
written policies at all, from about 25 in the early 1990s to about 40 states by
the mid-1990s. Toward the end of the 1990s, all states had policies in place,
but changes continued. Most of these changes in policies reflected alterations
in the specifics of participation criteria or in the accommodations that were
listed as appropriate or not appropriate for students to use in state testing.
These types of changes are expected to continue as states focus on increasing
the participation of students with disabilities in their assessments.
Table 1. Excepts of Federal Laws Related to Participation and Accommodation
|
"the
participation in such assessments of all students" (Section 1111 (3)
(C)(i));
Accommodation
"the reasonable adaptations
and accommodations for students with disabilities (as defined under section
602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) necessary to
measure the academic achievement of such students relative to State academic
content and State student academic achievement standards"(Section 1111 (3)
(C)(ii)). |
|
|
1 Items from Section 612 are eligibility requirements for states to receive assistance under the Grants to States program
Need to Update and Analyze
It is expected that evolution in the policies that states have will continue as small adjustments are made. These adjustments may be in response to a variety of within-state factors (e.g., implementation of a new assessment) and federal-level factors (e.g., non-approval of state assessment systems by Title I). It is important to keep track of these adjustments, and we do that in this report. But, it is also important to step back a bit and analyze what policies are telling us about some of the broader issues. With this goal in mind, we address the following questions in this report:
1. How many states’ policies reflect the three basic participation options for students with disabilities–general assessment without accommodations, general assessment with accommodations, alternate assessment? How many states have other options that are evident in their policies?
2. What, if any, qualitative differences exist in current participation policies?
3. How many states have policies that allow accommodations for all students?
4. What are the indications that some accommodations may be treated differently from others in reporting and accountability, and how many states make those implications clear in their policies?
5. What are the most controversial accommodations (e.g., read aloud, calculator, scribe), and what are states’ policies like for them?
In addition to answering these questions, we provide our typical tables, so that comparisons can be made to past policies.
Updating Procedures
In general, the same procedures were used for this analysis of states’ written participation and accommodations policies as have been used in the past. Unlike other analyses of policies, which often ask an informed respondent to answer survey questions (e.g., Bond, Jones, & Olson, 2001), NCEO examines publicly available written documents.
Gathering Policies
All 50 states were contacted via phone and email to update our files on participation and accommodation policies. We asked each state for copies of any policies they had revised since 1999. All 50 states responded to our request, with 45 states sending revisions and only four noting that they had not changed their participation and accommodations policies. We accepted new documents through September, 2001.
All of the tabled results of our analyses were sent back to the states for validation. State officials could indicate that there were no changes needed, ask for more information in order to decide whether the tables were accurate, or change the tables. If a state indicated the need for a change after reviewing the summary tables, we requested written documentation before making the changes. We accepted new changes or revisions through October 31, 2001. A complete list of state documents used to compile the tables is in Appendix A.
Presenting the Policies
We summarized the information in two sets of tables; one set for participation policies and the second set for accommodation policies. These tables are included in the Appendices in this report, thus enabling readers to make direct comparisons to the tables in the 1999 analysis. As always, presenting policy information in tables makes the information easily accessible, but it can sometimes obscure the underlying complexity of the individual state policies. For example, it is not apparent in any of the tables that the documents describing each state’s policies ranged from a few pages to hundreds of pages. Some states specify accommodations for each individual test, while others provide general accommodation guidelines that apply to all tests administered in the state. Some of these complexities are apparent in some of the tables, but others are evident only by looking at the actual written documents.
Participation Policies
In 2001, as in 1999, all states had a state-level participation policy for students with disabilities in state or district testing. Table 2 summarizes the numbers of states using different policy variables either without restrictions or with some restrictions, or prohibiting the use of a variable, or not mentioning each variable in determining how students participate in assessments. Details on the policies of specific states are provided in Tables B1 and B2 in Appendix B.
Participation Policy Variables
As is evident in Table 2, the primary variables that are used without restrictions in determining how students participate in assessments are: (1) course content or curricular validity (27 states), (2) parent involvement (20 states), and (3) non-pursuit of standard diploma or the general curriculum (12 states). All but one state indicated that the participation decision was an IEP team decision. Few variables are used with restrictions. However, states did prohibit the use of some variables, primarily: (1) the nature or category of a student’s disability (22 states) and (2) the percentage of time that the student received special education services (10 states). Table 2. Summary of Participation Policy Variables
|
Used without Restrictions |
Used |
Prohibited |
Not
Mentioned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent/Guardian Involvement Specified |
|
|
|
|
Receiving
Spec Ed Services/Percent Time |
|
|
|
|
Non-Pursuit of Standard Diploma or General Curriculum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitions:
IEP Team Decides = decision is based, in part or in whole, on what the IEP
team recommends; other variables may or may not be included. Nature/Category of Disability = decision
is based in whole or part, on the disability category of the student.
Course Content or Curricular Validity = decision is based, in part or in
whole, on whether the student received course or content areas covered by the
assessment, or whether the assessment provides a valid measure of the student’s
curriculum.
Parent/Guardian Involvement Specified = decision based specifically on the
parents’ desires, or decision must be specifically signed off by the parents. Non-Pursuit of Standard Diploma or General Curriculum = Decision is
based, in part or in whole, on whether the student participates in the general
academic curriculum.
Receiving Spec Ed Services/percent Time = decision is based, in part or in
whole, on whether the student receives special education services, what kind of
services the student receives, or the percentage of time that the student
receives special education services.
For the first time our analysis of participation policies included a new
variable–"student emotional anxiety." This addition reflects the increased
frequency of its use in state policies in 2001; 6 states permitted the
assessment participation decision to be based, in whole or part, on a student’s
emotional anxiety and the student’s possible adverse reaction to the testing
situation.
Many states’ policies on participation also cite various "other" variables that
are either used (with or without restrictions) or that are prohibited. Details
on these are in Table B2 of Appendix B. Evident in this table is the diversity
of the "other" criteria that states use, from requiring certification of a
medical condition to requests for exclusion for religious beliefs. The most
frequently mentioned "other" criterion refers to making decisions on the basis
of possible poor performance. Nine states refer to performance considerations,
with most indicating that poor performance is not an acceptable reason for
exclusion from the assessment. Two states (Montana, Oregon) do indicate that
performance levels may determine which testing option is most appropriate. The
next most frequent "other" criterion refers to extended student absence–seven
states have policies that do not permit exclusion due to excessive or extended
absence, while two states permit exclusion for absence. Six states prohibit
decisions being based on social, cultural, or economic differences. Another
frequently mentioned criterion is the location of the student (students not at
their home school, in treatment facilities, in hospitals, etc.).
Changes Since 1999. In comparing data in Table 2 (and in Appendix B, Tables B1
and B2) to 1999 data (Thurlow et al., 2000), several changes are evident. Most
notably, there has been an increase from 11 to 22 states that specifically do
not allow the nature or category of a student’s disability to be used in the
assessment participation decision-making process. Twenty-eight states now allow
participation decisions to be based at least partially on whether the student
received instruction in the course or content areas covered by the assessment
(27 states with no restrictions and 1 state with restrictions). Only 15 states
considered course content in the 1999 analysis.
The number of states specifically requiring parental involvement is now half of
the states (24 states without restrictions, 1 state with restrictions). This is
up considerably from the 9 states that required parental involvement in the 1999
analysis.
In the 1999 analysis, 4 states allowed participation decisions to be based at
least partially on the amount of time students received special education
services. This has been reduced to a single state in 2001, while the number of
states that explicitly do not allow this as a criterion increased from 6 to 10
states; 39 states do not address this criterion at all in their state policy.
Additional Testing Options
In Table 3 we summarize three additional testing options that are evident in the participation policies in some states: out-of-level testing, partial participation in testing, and multiple alternate assessment options. In this table we indicate whether the state’s written policy indicates that the option is: (1) available, (2) available, but the score from the option might not be aggregated, (3) not allowed, or (4) not mentioned. Details on the policies of specific states are provided in Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B.
Table 3.
Summary of Additional Testing Options
Testing Option
|
Available |
Available, Not Aggregated |
Not
Allowed |
Not
Mentioned |
Out-of-Level Testing* |
9 |
12 |
8 |
27 |
Partial
Participation |
21 |
0 |
4 |
25 |
More Than
One Alternate Assessment Option |
9 |
0 |
0 |
41 |
Definitions: Out-of-Level Testing
= student may take the assessment designated for a lower level than the one in
which he or she actually is placed to receive instruction;
Partial Participation = students make take certain parts of the assessment,
without being required to take others (e.g., content areas or subparts); Alternate Assessment = student
participates in a different assessment designed specifically for a subgroup of
students, including assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities
and assessments for students who have not passed a graduation exam (i.e.,
however the state defines alternate assessment).
* Many
states have complicated written policies on out-of-level testing. Some policies allow out-of-level for some tests but not
others, or allow for all but do not aggregate the scores only for some of them. As a result, the numbers in the
Out-of-Level Testing row do not total 50.
Check Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B for details.
It is clear in Table 3 that the most frequently allowed option is partial
participation. Out-of-level testing is much less frequently allowed (at least,
as evident in written participation policies), and quite often prohibited. The
final option refers to the availability of more than one alternate assessment.
Since all states now indicate that an alternate assessment is available
(Thompson & Thurlow, 2001), we considered it important to look at those policies
indicating that more than one alternate assessment option is available.
It is clear in Table 3 that out-of-level testing is a controversial testing
option. As noted in the table’s footnote, the total number in the out-of-level
testing row does not equal 50 because of the combinations of allowed, allowed
but not aggregated, and not allowed within six states. A common scenario in
these states (but not the only one) was that out-of-level testing was allowed
for the state’s norm-referenced test, but only for a limited number of levels
below the tested grade level–if beyond that number of levels out, then the
scores would not be aggregated; at the same time, the states’ criterion
referenced test could not be taken out-of-level. Only 5 states’ written policies
indicated that out-of-level testing was allowed without any limitations.
The number of states showing up as allowing out-of-level testing in this
analysis of state policies is different from the number showing up in surveys of
state directors of special education (Thompson & Thurlow, 2001). There are a
number of reasons why this may be the case (e.g., it is considered part of the
regular test administration, particularly for norm-referenced tests; written
policy changes are evident later than actual changes in policy as reflected in
survey responses). Still, this discrepancy is worth further investigation.
The written policies in 9 states indicated that more than one alternate
assessment is available. Vermont, for example, has three alternate assessment
options: modified assessments, adapted assessments, and life skills assessments.
Connecticut refers to its out-of-level test as an alternate assessment, which is
in addition to another alternate assessment–a developmental checklist.
Changes Since 1999 . Comparing the information in Table 3 (and in Table B3 and
B4 in Appendix B) to 1999 information indicates that several changes have
occurred in written policies about out-of-level testing. In 2001, written
policies in 21 states indicated that out-of-level testing was available in some
form for one or more tests, up from 9 states in the 1999 analysis. Many of these
policies, however, have caveats, the most frequent being that out-of-level test
scores are not included in the aggregate scores of the student population.
In contrast, the number of states permitting partial participation has remained
basically the same, with only one fewer state allowing this option in 2001 (n =
21) compared to 1999 (n = 22). Whether this change is related to the new
availability of an alternate assessment is unknown.
Accommodations Policies
In this report, we use the term "accommodation" to indicate any change or adjustment to what are considered to be standard testing procedures or materials. Accommodations are those changes intended to enable a student with a disability to participate in state or district assessments, or for the student to better show knowledge and skills. Accommodations can be categorized in a variety of ways. For this report, we organize accommodations into five categories: presentation, presentation equipment and materials, response, scheduling/timing, and setting.
Terminology and Definitions
For many years now, terminology used to indicate testing changes has been variable from one place to the next, and often contradictory in meaning. Thurlow and Wiener (1999) found that five states (Florida, Maine, New Mexico, New York, and Ohio) used the term "modification" to refer to valid test changes. Other states used a variety of other terms. An analysis of the terminology used in 2001 policies to distinguish between test changes that produce "okay" and "not okay" scores reveals that terminology is changing. For example, only New York continues to use the term "modification" to indicate a test change that produces valid scores. [The terms "okay" and "not okay" are used to reflect a wide range of terms used in states to indicate that a score earned with accommodations is considered to be comparable to other scores versus being considered to be different in some way–whether "invalid," "non-aggregatable," or "non-standard".]
Table 4 is a summary of the terms used in state policies to distinguish between accommodations that produce okay scores and those that do not. For example, the Massachusetts policy now states: "The terms standard and non-standard accommodations will be used to designate those accommodations previously referred to as allowable and non-allowable under the MCAS guidelines."
Table 4. Terms Used to Indicate Okay and Not Okay Test Changes
|
Okay Accommodations |
Not
Okay Accommodationsa |
AL |
Standard
administration |
Nonstandard administration--Report will indicate nonstandard administration. |
AK |
Appropriate accommodation |
Modified
tests produce marked scores; Modified high school grad exam does not lead to
high school diploma. |
AZ |
Allowable
accommodations do not require special coding on student answer document. |
Modification – Requires special coding on student answer document; not
included in score summary reports. |
AR |
Permitted
accommodations |
Not
permitted accommodations |
CA |
Standard
test administration with accommodations – All scores reported and aggregated
into summary reports. |
Non
standard test administration – scores reported in individual score reports,
not in summary reports. |
CO |
Accommodations that must be documented, and accommodations that do not need
to be documented on student test book. |
|
CT |
Allowable
accommodations |
Modification – Scores cannot be interpreted in same way. |
DE |
Accommodations that permit aggregation of test scores. |
Accommodations that produce non-aggregated scores. |
FL |
Allowable
accommodations are limited to those listed in the test administration
manuals. |
Nonvalid
administration – Results are reported individually with indication of the
modifications used. |
GA |
Standard
administration – Procedures in administration manual are followed exactly
(e.g., large-print test, small-group setting). |
Nonstandard administration – Procedures in admin manual are not followed
exactly (e.g., reading test to student, use word processor). |
HI |
Allowed
accommodations |
Non-allowed accommodations |
IDb |
Accommodations |
|
IL |
Appropriate accommodations |
|
IN |
On CRT –
Accommodations that are permitted and documented. |
On CRT –
Accommodations that are permitted are not documented; other accommodations
are prohibited. |
IA |
Standard
administration, Standard administration with accommodations |
Modifications – Scores cannot be aggregated. |
KS |
Allowable
Accommodation |
Modification |
KY |
Accommodations |
Modifications
|
LA |
NRT -
Scores included in group averages for large print, transferred answers,
individual/small group admin, and repeated directions. |
NRT -
Scores for any other accommodations will not be included when group averages
are calculated. |
ME |
Specific
allowable accommodations |
|
MD |
Permitted
accommodations |
Accommodation invalidates comparison to national norms--Score is invalidated
in the scoring/data processing process; Accommodation not permitted. |
MA |
Standard
accommodations |
Non-standard accommodations are modifications. |
MI |
Accommodations |
|
MN |
Accommodations |
Modifications – Allowed on basic standards test, not allowed on
accountability assessments. |
MS |
Allowable
accommodations |
Non-allowable accommodations, Modifications |
MO |
Accommodations that do not impact a student’s score or results. |
Accommodations that do impact a student’s score or results. |
MT |
Standard
accommodations |
Nonstandard accommodations – Scores are not compared with those of other
students. |
NE |
Standard
administration – allowable accommodations |
Modified
administration |
NV |
Permissible accommodations |
Non-permissible accommodations result in an invalid administration of the
test. |
NH |
Reportable
test accommodations |
Test
administered using nonstandard procedures: Student counted in the novice
category and assigned a scaled score of 200 in pertinent content area
school, district, and state report. |
NJ |
Allowable
accommodations |
Modifications in test materials or procedures |
NM |
Standardized administration |
Not
allowable |
NY |
Modification* |
|
NC |
Appropriate accommodations |
|
ND |
Accommodations that require documentation. |
Accommodations that compromise the standardization of the test. |
OH |
Appropriate accommodations |
Modifications-- Not allowed |
OK |
Allowable
accommodations |
Modifications – Results cannot be reported with results from other students. |
OR |
Allowable
accommodations are considered standard administration. |
Modifications – Results are not included in group performance reporting and
do not count toward meeting performance standards for individual students. |
PA |
Accommodation
|
|
RI |
Permitted
accommodations |
|
SC |
Accommodation |
Modification
|
SD |
Accommodation – standard administration |
|
TN |
Allowable
test accommodations |
Not
allowed |
TX |
Allowable
accommodations |
Non-allowable accommodations |
UT |
Accommodations |
Modifications – May invalidate or alter interpretation of assessment
results. |
VT |
Allowable
accommodation |
Nonallowable accommodation – Invalidates a student’s assessment results and
entered into the school accountability index as a zero. |
VA |
Standard
Accommodations - maintain standard conditions |
Nonstandard Accommodations - Permissible but do not maintain standard
conditions; Scores are not aggregated into school and division summaries. |
WA |
Accommodations
|
|
WV |
Accommodations – do not affect standardization |
Modifications – no longer standard conditions |
WI |
Accommodations
|
No
modifications may be made. |
WY |
Allowable
accommodations that require or do not require documentation. |
|
b New policies will be available soon.
*New York uses the term "modification" to mean okay test changes.
Most states’ policies made a distinction between test changes that are viewed as
"okay" and those that are viewed as "not okay" for some reason. The sets of
terms that states used to reflect this distinction are:
• Accommodation vs. Modification (15 states)
• Allowed vs. Not Allowed (7 states)
• Standard vs. Non-Standard (6 states)
• Permitted/Permissible vs. Not Permitted/Non-Permissible (2 states)
• Reportable vs. Not Reportable (1 state)
Rather than using specific terms, some states provide references to what happens
when certain test changes are implemented. For example, states indicate that
scores are:
• Removed from summary reports (11 states)
• Flagged or marked (2 states)
• Reported as zero or in lowest category (2 states)
Many states do not indicate in their written accommodations policies what
happens to scores that are in the "not okay" category.
The 11 states that do not make a distinction between okay and not okay
accommodations (Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming) treat them in
different ways. For example, Colorado and Wyoming indicate that the use of
certain accommodations must be documented while others need not be documented.
Maine refers to "specific allowable accommodations" but does not address the
consequences of using accommodations that are not allowable.
Eligible Groups
Accommodation policies may apply to students on IEPs, students with 504 plans,
students with limited English proficiency, or simply all students. Table 5
provides information about the extent to which different groups of students are
included in state accommodations policies sent to NCEO. Because we did not ask
for LEP accommodation policies (Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone, & Sharkey, 2000),
the final column in the table indicates only those states that listed within
their special education policies (or their all students accommodation policies)
a type of accommodation specifically designated for LEP students (e.g., a
bilingual dictionary). Twelve states have embedded some LEP accommodations
policies within their policies for students with disabilities.
As is evident in Table 5, most states’ policies indicate that accommodations are
for IEP and 504 plan students. In general, those that do not are the states that
have broader policies that apply to all students, or a broader group of students
than just those with IEPs and 504 plans.
Table 5. Student Groups Eligible for Accommodations* Policy Specifications by Student Characteristics
|
|
Special Circumstances** |
|
|
IEP/LEP (Inferred) |
AL |
|
|
X |
X |
|
AK |
|
|
X |
X |
|
AZ |
|
|
X |
X |
|
AR |
|
|
X |
X |
|
CA |
|
|
X |
X |
|
CO |
X |
|
|
|
X |
CT |
|
|
X |
X |
|
DE |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
FL |
|
|
X |
X |
|
GA |
|
|
X |
X |
|
HI |
|
|
X |
X |
|
ID |
|
|
X |
X |
|
IL |
|
|
X |
X |
|
IN |
|
|
X |
X |
|
IA |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
KS |
X |
|
|
|
|
KY |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
LA |
|
|
X |
X |
|
ME |
|
X |
|
|
X |
MD |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
MA |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
MI |
|
|
X |
X |
|
MN |
|
Xa |
X |
X |
|
MS |
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
MO |
|
|
X |
X |
|
MT |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
NE |
|
|
X |
X |
|
NV |
|
|
X |
X |
|
NH |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
NJ |
|
|
X |
X |
|
NM |
|
|
X |
X |
|
NY |
|
Xa |
X |
X |
|
NC |
|
|
X |
X |
|
ND |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
OH |
|
|
X |
|
|
OK |
|
|
X |
X |
|
OR |
X |
|
|
|
X |
PA |
|
|
X |
X |
X |
RI |
X |
|
|
|
X |
SC |
|
|
X |
X |
|
SD |
|
|
X |
X |
|
TN |
|
|
X |
X |
|
TX |
|
|
X |
X |
|
UT |
|
|
X |
X |
|
VT |
|
Xa |
X |
X |
|
VA |
|
|
X |
X |
|
WA |
|
Xa |
X |
X |
X |
WV |
|
|
X |
X |
|
WI |
|
|
X |
X |
|
WY |
X |
|
|
|
|
**Special circumstances indicate conditions under which "all" is in policy.
aIndicates the availability of certain types of accommodations to all students (MN, WA), or to students who previously were on IEPs (NY) or to students who have been referred to an education support team (VT).
Of the 15 states that do not limit
their accommodations to IEP or 504 students, only 5 states (Colorado, Kansas,
Oregon, Rhode Island, Wyoming) specifically indicate that assessment
accommodations are available to all students, without restrictions. Three states
(listed in Table 5 under the Special Circumstances column) either allow certain
accommodations to all students (Minnesota, Washington) or allow accommodations
to a certain subset of all students, specifically those who formerly were on
IEPs but no longer are (New York). The remaining states in the Special
Circumstances column indicate the special circumstances under which a student
who is not on an IEP or 504 plan may use accommodations during testing (e.g.,
temporary disability or injury). Details on the exact nature of the "all
students" and "special considerations" columns is provided in Table B5 of
Appendix B.
Decision-Making Criteria
Making decisions about accommodations also is addressed in some accommodation
policies. States use a variety of criteria to guide the decision-making process
(see Table 6 and Table B6 in Appendix B). In all but one state, the IEP team is
identified in policy as the decision-making body for the determination of
assessment accommodations for individual students. Most states (n = 39) indicate
that the use of instructional accommodations must be considered in making
decisions. Twenty-four states require that another factor that must be
considered in decision making is whether the accommodation maintains validity or
does not produce an unfair advantage. Nineteen states require that the
individual needs or characteristics of students be considered when test
accommodation decisions are made. A handful of states specifically prohibit
basing the decision about accommodations either on the program setting (6
states) or on the student’s disability category (8 states).
Table 6. Summary of Accommodation Policy Variables
Policy Variable |
Used |
Prohibited |
|
IEP Team
Determined |
49 |
0 |
0 |
Used for
Instruction |
39 |
0 |
0 |
Maintains
Validity/No Unfair Advantage |
24 |
0 |
0 |
Student
Needs/Characteristics |
19 |
0 |
0 |
Program
Setting |
0 |
0 |
6 |
Disability
Category |
0 |
0 |
8 |
Other |
20 |
1 |
0 |
Definitions:
IEP Team Determines = general guideline indicating that IEP team identifies
needed accommodations. Used for Instruction = accommodation must be used for instruction
before it can be considered for use during an assessment. Maintains Validity/No Unfair Advantage =
determination about accommodation is based on evidence (opinion or research)
that resulting score will be valid and not provide an unfair advantage.
Student Needs/Characteristics = based explicitly on the specific needs and
learning characteristics of the student. Program Setting = where the student receives special education
services, what kind of services, or the percentage of time that the student
receives them. Disability Category = specific nature or category of the student’s
disability.
Many states cite a variety of other variables that might be considered without
restrictions. These other variables are detailed in Table B7 in Appendix B. As
is evident, some states require that an accommodation be used for a minimum
period of time before it can be an assessment accommodation. Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, and Wyoming all require an accommodation to be used for at least three
months for instruction prior to use in a statewide test. Several states indicate
that for certain accommodations, the final decision about use is made by a
state-level person or group (see Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine). Several
other unique decision variables are also evident. For example, Oklahoma
indicates that accommodation decisions should not be based on convenience or
ease. Missouri indicates that students should be involved in making
accommodation decisions. Arizona indicates that accommodation decisions must be
specific to each content area.
Changes Since 1999 . Many of the variables used in 2001 are similar to those
used in 1999. There was a slight in increase in the number of states
specifically indicating that the accommodation must maintain validity or not
provide an unfair advantage (up from 16 to 24). Generally, the factors that are
not to be considered have remained constant. As in 1999, no states permit the
use of program setting or disability category in the determination of
accommodations use, and several states specifically prohibit use of those
criteria.
Presentation Accommodations
Presentation accommodations alter the way in which a test is presented to a
student. Table 7 gives a summary of the presentation accommodations documented
in state policy. Detailed information on these accommodations for each state are
presented in Table B8 in Appendix B.
Table 7. Summary of Presentation Accommodations
Presentation Accommodation |
Allowed without Restrictions |
Allowed with Restrictions |
Completely Prohibited |
Not Mentioned |
46 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
|
Braille |
35 |
14 |
0 |
1 |
Read Aloud |
5 |
41 |
1 |
3 |
Sign
Interpretation |
37 |
8 |
0 |
5 |
Read/Re-read/Clarify |
29 |
10 |
1 |
10 |
Visual
Cues |
20 |
2 |
0 |
28 |
Administration by Other |
18 |
0 |
0 |
32 |
Additional
Examples |
7 |
1 |
0 |
42 |
Other |
29 |
7 |
1 |
13 |
The two most frequently documented presentation accommodations are large print
and Braille (each allowed by 49 states). However, large print is more often
allowed without restrictions while Braille is more often restricted (14 states)
in the sense that it is considered a non-standard accommodation, frequently
resulting in a score that is not aggregated with other scores (11 states). In
some states (4 states), Braille is prohibited for use on specific assessments.
Read Aloud is still one of the more controversial accommodations. Forty-six
states permit some or all tests to be read aloud, but many of these states do
not aggregate the scores of students who use this accommodation (12 states).
Most often, states allow a math test to be read aloud but do not allow the
reading aloud of a test that assesses reading skills. Only Hawaii completely
prohibits the read aloud accommodation for all content areas. Five states allow
the read aloud accommodation without any restrictions (Kentucky, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New York, and Vermont).
While sign language interpretation of assessment instructions also is allowed by
45 states, it less often has restrictions attached to its use. Restrictions
reflect both the non-aggregation of scores and the restriction of use to some
assessments. Read/re-read/clarify directions is similar in that it is allowed in
most states without restrictions, and in several additional states with
restrictions. Generally the restrictions involve non-aggregation of scores or
limitations in use to certain assessments.
The remaining presentation accommodations summarized in Table 7 (visual cues,
administration by other, additional examples) are generally allowed without
restrictions. In many cases, these accommodations are simply not
mentioned–perhaps because they are becoming viewed as good assessment practice.
Still, there are a large number of "other" accommodations that states are
identifying, sometimes with restrictions. A glance at Table B9 in Appendix B
reveals that wide ranging accommodations are addressed in some states, including
behavioral and reinforcement accommodations, paraphrasing, highlighting of key
words, on-task focusing prompts, and so on. For example, 10 states (California,
Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont,
Washington, and Wisconsin) permit test administrators to encourage students to
remain on task, while 1 state (Colorado) specifically prohibits cues or any form
of feedback. Many of these other accommodations reflect the carry-over of
instructional accommodations to assessment situations.
Changes Since 1999 . Not all comparisons between 1999 and 2001 analyses of
policies on presentation accommodations indicate that more states are allowing
these accommodations. Only eight states now allow the test administrator to
provide examples of questions to students. This number is down from the 10
states that permitted this accommodation in 1999.
Equipment and Materials Accommodations
Table 8 provides a summary of the equipment and material accommodations
documented in state policies. State-by-state details on these accommodations are
presented in Tables B10 and B11 in Appendix B. Most of the equipment and
materials accommodations listed in state policies are targeted at the
presentation of the test, but some are response-related accommodations (e.g.,
using a calculator or abacus). Most of these accommodations are not
controversial. The use of magnification or amplification equipment, special
lighting or acoustics, templates/graph paper, noise buffers, and adaptive or
special furniture are documented and allowed in the majority of states.
Table 8. Summary of Equipment and Material Accommodations
Equipment and Material
Accommodation |
Allowed without Restrictions |
Allowed with Restrictions |
Completely Prohibited |
Not
Mentioned |
Magnification Equipment |
40 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
Amplification Equipment |
34 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
Light/Acoustics |
32 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
Calculator |
14 |
23 |
1 |
12 |
Templates/Graph Paper |
32 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
Audio/Video Cassette |
16 |
9 |
2 |
23 |
Noise
Buffer |
27 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
Adaptive
or Special Furniture |
29 |
1 |
0 |
20 |
Abacus |
13 |
6 |
1 |
30 |
Other |
30 |
9 |
0 |
11 |
Definitions:
Magnification Equipment = equipment that enlarges the print size of the test. Amplification Equipment = equipment that increases the level of sound during the test (e.g., FM systems, hearing aids). Light/Acoustics = changes to the amount or placement of lighting or special attention to the acoustics of the test setting. Calculator = standard calculator and special function calculators (sometimes one is allowed but not the other). Templates/Graph Paper = Placemarkers or templates used to mark location of focus on the test. Audio/Video Cassette = audio or video equipment. Noise Buffer = ear mufflers, white noise, and other equipment used to block external sounds. Adaptive or Special Furniture = any furniture the student requires for sitting upright, holding a writing instrument, etc. Abacus = abacus or similar counting tools.
The calculator accommodation is the most controversial of the equipment and
materials accommodations. While it is mentioned in the policies in 37 states,
more often than not the scores are not aggregated when it is used, or it is
allowed only in limited situations. Only one state (Texas) does not permit the
use of a calculator at all.
Two other equipment/materials accommodations seem to be somewhat controversial.
The use of an abacus is documented in fewer states (n = 19), but like the
calculator has a variety of specific conditions under which it cannot be used,
and in one state (New Mexico) cannot be used at all. Similarly audio or
videotapes of assessment questions also are allowed in 25 states, but with some
kind of restriction in 9 of them; they are not allowed at all in 2 states.
A variety of other accommodations are mentioned in the policies in 39 states.
The most common accommodation is the size or grip of pencils. Math
manipulatives, arithmetic tables, and colored filters are also allowed in
several states. Unique accommodations include cue cards and treats or prizes.
Changes Since 1999. The biggest changes in policies from 1999 to 2001 are
evident in the clarifications and specifications attached to the calculator and
audio/video cassette accommodations. Much more clarification is provided as to
the specific conditions under which these accommodations are considered
appropriate. Otherwise, equipment accommodations have remained relatively
stable, with only a minor increase in the number of states documenting these in
their policies.
Response Accommodations
Table 9 summarizes the response accommodations documented by states. Of the 48
states that permit a proctor or scribe to record a student’s responses in at
least some circumstances, 31 allow this accommodation without restrictions. Most
states also permit students to write in the test booklet or to use computers to
provide responses for the writing test. When computers are allowed, it is often
with special instructions about the availability of the spell checking function
(or other similar functions, e.g., grammar checks), which are reflected in the
"Spell Checker/Assistance" column in Table 9. Only 7 of the states that mention
spell checkers indicate that they are allowed without restrictions; 21 of the
states that mention them either allow them with restrictions (9 states) or
specifically prohibit their use (11 states). Other commonly used response
accommodations include the use of a tape recorder, communication device, or
Brailler.
Table 9. Summary of Response Accommodations
Response Accommodation |
Allowed without Restrictions |
Allowed with Restrictions |
Completely Prohibited |
Not
Mentioned |
Proctor/Scribe |
31 |
0 |
2 |
|
Computer
or Machine |
30 |
9 |
1 |
10 |
Write in
Test Booklets |
37 |
2 |
0 |
11 |
Tape
Recorder |
21 |
8 |
0 |
21 |
Communication Device |
27 |
8 |
0 |
15 |
Spell
Checker/Assistance |
7 |
9 |
11 |
23 |
Brailler |
30 |
3 |
0 |
17 |
Pointing |
21 |
3 |
0 |
26 |
Other |
21 |
5 |
1 |
23 |
Details about response accommodations allowed for each state are presented in
Table B12 and B13 of Appendix B. Among the other response accommodations
indicated by states (and evident in Table B13) are changing the size of answer
bubbles, signing responses to an interpreter, and voice recognition software.
Changes Since 1999 . Increases in the number of states documenting specific
response accommodations in their policies are small but consistent. They are
most notable, perhaps, for the Brailler and pointing accommodations. In
addition, there is generally more clarification provided about the use of spell
checkers and other similar kinds of assistance.
Scheduling/Timing Accommodations
Scheduling/timing accommodations, which are changes in the timing or scheduling
of an assessment, are summarized in Table 10. The most frequently allowed
accommodations in this category are extended time (42 states) and taking the
assessment with breaks (43 states). For both of these, a number of states place
some kind of restriction of their use (16 states for extended time and 10 states
for breaks). The only accommodations in this category that are prohibited by
some states are extended time and multiple days.
Table
10. Summary of Scheduling/Timing Accommodations
Scheduling/Timing
Accommodation |
Allowed without Restrictions |
Allowed with Restrictions |
Completely Prohibited |
Not
Mentioned |
Extended
Time |
26 |
16 |
3 |
5 |
With
Breaks |
33 |
10 |
0 |
7 |
Multiple
Sessions |
31 |
1 |
0 |
18 |
Time
Beneficial to Student |
35 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
Over
Multiple Days |
19 |
6 |
2 |
23 |
Other |
21 |
1 |
0 |
28 |
Definitions:
Extended Time = student may take long than the time typically allowed,
sometimes with the time specifically designated in some way. With Breaks = time away from test
allowed during tests typically administered without breaks, sometimes with
conditions about when this can occur (e.g., not within subtests) and how long
they can be.
Multiple Sessions = assessments generally given in a single session can be
broken into multiple sessions.
Time Beneficial to Student = administered at a time that is most
advantageous to the student, often related to a medication schedule. Over Multiple Days = administered over
several days when it is normally administered in one day.
Details of which states allowed which of these accommodations are presented in
Table B14 and B15 in Appendix B. Among the other scheduling/timing
accommodations indicted in these tables are administration of subtests in a
different order (documented in California, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Montana,
North Dakota, and West Virginia), and permitting test administration to be
terminated when the student can no longer sustain activity (documented in
Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Maine, and Mississippi).
Changes Since 1999. Documentation of extended time increased slightly to 42
states from the 37 states that permitted it in the 1999 analysis. Although most
of these scheduling/timing accommodations showed an increase in the number of
states documenting them, the largest increases were noted for the "time
beneficial to student" accommodation, with a couple of the states that in 1999
indicated conditions under which this accommodation was prohibited, no longer
doing so in 2001.
Setting Accommodations
Setting accommodations are changes in test location or environment. These
accommodations include individual or small group administration, administration
in a separate room or carrel, and the proximity of a student’s seat to the test
administrator (see Table 11), and are generally not controversial. Forty-six
states permit testing of students individually, and 46 states permit testing in
small groups. Most are allowed without restriction, or are simply not mentioned
in state policies. Perhaps the most "controversial" of the setting
accommodations is testing in the student’s home. Six of the 18 states that allow
this accommodation do so with restrictions, either in the type of students who
can be assessed at home (e.g., Alabama, Mississippi, and Oregon limit to
homebound students) or the specific assessment (e.g., Nevada). Hospital testing
is permitted in a few states.
|
Allowed without Restrictions |
Allowed |
Completely Prohibited |
Not
Mentioned |
Individual |
46 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
Small
Group |
46 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
Carrel |
32 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
Separate
Room |
36 |
0 |
0 |
14 |
Seat
Location/Proximity |
31 |
0 |
0 |
19 |
Minimize
Distractions/ |
22 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
Student’s
Home |
12 |
6 |
1 |
31 |
Special
Ed. Classroom |
17 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
Other |
19 |
0 |
0 |
31 |
Definitions:
Individual
= student assessed separately from other students. Small Group = student assessed in small
group separate from other students. Carrel = student assessed while seated
in a study carrel. Separate Room = student assessed in
separate room, usually involves also individual or small group accommodation. Seat Location/Proximity = student is assessed in a specifically
designated seat location, usually in close proximity to the test administrator. Minimize Distractions/Reduced Noise
= student assessed in a quiet environment where auditory distractions can be
kept to a minimum. Student’s Home = student assessed at
home, usually when out of school for illness or other reasons. Special Education Classroom = student assessed in special education
classroom, usually implying also small group or individual administration.
State by state information of setting accommodations is provided in Table B16 in
Appendix B, and specifications for setting accommodations and other setting
accommodations are provided in Table B17 of Appendix B.
Changes Since 1999 . In general, the number of states documenting specific
setting accommodations increased from 1999 to 2001. Only with respect to testing
in the student’s home was there a larger number of states indicating the
conditions under which this was prohibited in 2001.
Alternate Assessments
Alternate assessments, designed to assess students unable to participate in general state and district assessments, were required by IDEA 97 to be in place by July, 2000. In previous analyses of state policies on participation and accommodations, we noted only the number of states indicating that alternate assessments were one participation option. NCEO has tracked the development of alternate assessments through surveys and discussions, and periodically reported on progress (see Quenemoen, Massanari, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2000; Quenemoen, Thompson, Thurlow, & Olsen, 1999; Thompson, Erickson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Callender, 1999; Thompson & Thurlow, 1999, 2000, 2001), but has not looked specifically at written (and online) information on alternate assessments across all 50 states.
Most states now have information on their alternate assessments on their state education agency Web sites. For this report, we examined the extent to which states had participation policies, standards assessed by the alternate assessment, instructions for the administration of the alternate assessment, parent information on the alternate assessment, and any other information about the alternate assessment. This information is summarized in Table 12.
Table 12. Summary of Alternate Assessment Information
Alternate Assessment
Information |
Information Available |
No Information Available |
Policy |
41 |
9 |
Content
Standards (Expanded) |
30 |
20 |
Instructions for Administration |
35 |
15 |
Parent
Information |
15 |
35 |
Other
Information |
12 |
38 |
No
Information on |
|
|
As is evident in Table 12, and detailed in Tables B18 and B19 in Appendix B,
many states now have written information on their alternate assessments. In
fact, only five states had no information at all about their alternate
assessments. Most states have their policies, standards, and instructions for
administration available, and fewer have parent information or other kinds of
information available on their alternate assessments.
Summary
There have been many changes in state participation and accommodation policies as states continue to work toward increased participation and performance of students with disabilities on state and district assessments. The IEP team continues to play a key role in the participation and accommodation decision-making process, with an increase in the role of parents in this process. Decisions are now based more on an individual student’s ability to participate in an assessment than on a student’s disability category or placement. Emotional anxiety is a new category added this year, with eight states now basing participation decisions at least partially on this criterion.
States are grappling with the pros and cons of out-of-level testing. The practice of assessing students using a lower-level version of a test is controversial, with questions arising about unintended instructional consequences versus "accurately" measuring performance and avoiding student frustration (Minnema, Thurlow, Bielinski, & Scott, 2000). All states now have alternate assessments available for students, with a few states developing multiple alternate assessments.
In general, states continue to increase the number of accommodations documented within their policies, while at the same time considering the implications of accommodations that are deemed to invalidate test results. This has resulted in more detailed specifications about which accommodations can be reported. These details are evident for all of the categories of accommodations, a characteristic that makes it more and more difficult to provide simple summaries of accommodations policies.
For the first time in our analyses of participation and accommodation policies, there has been enough information on alternate assessments to begin to characterize the information that is available. Most states have placed information online. The information that was available for our analyses indicated that there are only five states that have no information at all about their alternate assessments on their state education agency Web sites. Most states have focused their information on the policies, standards, and instructions for administration. Future reports will analyze these policies in greater depth.
The 2001 analysis of participation and accommodations policies provides answers to the five questions noted at the beginning of this report.
1. The policies in all states except five reflect the three basic participation options of general assessment without accommodations, general assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment. In addition, a number of states have additional options, in the form of partial participation, more than one alternate assessment, and out-of-level testing.
2. Qualitatively, the 2001 policies are more detailed than previous policies. Generally these details reflect greater specification of the conditions under which a specific policy applies.
3. Five states now have accommodations policies that indicate assessment accommodations can be used by any student in the state–not just those on IEPs, 504 plans, or who have limited English proficiency. A few additional states make certain accommodation categories available to all students, and several additional states indicate that any student with a temporary disability (one not requiring an IEP or a 504 plan) has access to accommodations.
4. Many states specifically indicate when the use of a specific accommodation will result in the score from the assessment not being included in aggregations. It is still unclear whether all of the states that may not aggregate certain scores have indicated this in their accommodation policies.
5. The most controversial accommodations continue to be those identified previously–read aloud, calculator, and scribe. All of these have been more carefully defined and the conditions under which they are allowed or aggregated more explicitly stated in the 2001 policies.
It is clear from this analysis that state policies continue to evolve. Dramatic changes from the previous analysis are not as evident as they were in the early days of examining participation and accommodations policies. Instead the changes are slower and represent greater understanding of the details of policies.
References
Minnema, J., Thurlow, M. Bielinski, J., & Scott., J. (2000). Past and present understandings of out-of-level testing: A research synthesis (Out-of-Level Testing Project Report 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/OOLT1.html.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2001). Crosswalk of Title I and IDEA assessment and accountability provisions for students with disabilities. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, National Center of Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 3, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Crosswalk.htm#Part3IDEA.
National Center on Educational Outcomes (2002a). Citations from law: Comparison of selected Title I 1994 and 2001 assessment and accountability provisions for students with disabilities (Unpublished working paper). Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. (2002b). Nuts and bolts excerpts for overview of No Child Left Behind Act (Unpublished working paper). Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Olson, J.F., Jones, I., & Bond, L. (2001). State student assessment programs annual survey. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Quenemoen, R., Massanari, C., Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2000). Alternate assessment forum: Connecting into a whole. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., & Olsen, K., (1999). Forum on alternate assessment and "gray area" assessment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 24, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/GrayAreaForum/Conference_Report.htm
Rivera, C., Stansfield, C., Scialdone, L., & Sharkey, M., (2000). An analysis of state policies for the inclusion and accommodation of English language learners in state assessment programs during 1998-99. Arlington VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.
Thompson, S. J., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Callender, S. (1999). Status of the states in the development of alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 31). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1999). 1999 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the end of the century. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M., Elliott, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1999). Out-of-level testing: Pros and cons (Policy Directions 9). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update (Synthesis Report 33). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995a). A compilation of states’ guidelines for accommodations in assessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 18). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995b). A compilation of states’ guidelines for including students with disabilities in assessments (Synthesis Report 17). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M., Seyfarth, A., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). State assessment policies on participation and accommodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis Report 29). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M., & Wiener, D. (2000). Non-approved accommodations: Recommendations for use and reporting (Policy Directions No. 11). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Appendix A
State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation and Accommodations Policies
Alabama |
Richardson, E. (1998, 2000). Alabama
student assessment program: Policies and procedures for students of special
populations. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Department of Education. |
Alaska |
Alaska
Department of Education and Early Development (2000). Participation guidelines for Alaska students in state assessments.
Juneau, AK. |
Arizona |
Orr, B.
J., Powell, K., & Young, P. S. (2001). Arizona’s instrument to measure standards and special education.
Phoenix, AZ: Academic Standards and Accountability Division of the Arizona
Department of Education.
http://www.ade.state.az.us/standards/AIMS/Administering/Disabilities.pdf. |
Arkansas |
Harcourt
Educational Measurement (2000, Fall).
Arkansas test coordinator’s handbook, student assessment program, grades 5,
7, and 10, 9th
Ed. San Antonio, TX. |
California |
California Department of Education (2001).
Standardized testing and reporting program: Special instructions for testing
students requiring special accommodations. San Antonio TX: Harcourt
Educational Measurement.
http://www.cde.gov/statetests/star/specialEducation/Accomodations.pdf. |
Colorado |
State of
Colorado (2000). Understanding
accommodations. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Education.
http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/asaccomm.htm. |
Connecticut |
Connecticut State Department of Education, Bureau of Student Assessment and
Research, and Bureau of Special Education and Pupil Services (2000). Assessment guidelines for administering the Connecticut Mastery Test,
the Connecticut Academic Performance Test, and the Connecticut Alternate
Assessment, 7th Ed. Hartford, CT.
http://www.state.ct.us/sde/der/publications/student_assessment/index.htm |
Delaware |
Delaware
Department of Education, Assessment and Analysis Group (2001).
Delaware student testing program: Guidelines for the inclusion of students with disabilities and students
with limited English proficiency (revised). Dover, DE. |
Florida |
Florida
Department of Education, Division of Public Schools and Community Education
and the Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services (2000).
Policy paper: Accountability for students with disabilities in state and
district assessment programs. Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Curriculum, Instruction, and
Assessment, Assessment and Evaluation Services, and the Bureau of
Instructional Support and Community Education (2000). Testing accommodations for students with
disabilities. Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Department of Education, Division of Public Schools and Community
Education and the Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services
(1999). A guide for parents of
children in exceptional student education: Q & A. Tallahassee, FL. |
Georgia |
Georgia
Department of Education (2001).
Student assessment handbook. Atlanta, GA.
http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/sla/ret/sah-01-02.pdf. |
Hawaii |
Harcourt
Brace Educational Measurement (1999, Spring). Hawaii test coordinators’s handbook: Statewide student assessment
program, grades 3, 5, 7, 9, Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Ed.
San Antonio, TX. |
Idaho |
Idaho
Department of Education (1999). Idaho
statewide assessment accommodations guide. Boise, ID.
Idaho Department of Education (1999).
Statewide/districtwide assessment participation checklist for use by IEP
team. Boise, ID.
|
Illinois |
Gidwitz,
R. & McGee, G. W. (2001). Illinois
standards achievement test district and school coordination manual.
Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education. |
Indiana |
Indiana
Department of Education (2000).
Indiana statewide testing for educational progress, program manual,
2000-2001. Indianapolis, IN.
http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/publications/pdf_istep/istep_program00.pdf |
Iowa |
Foegen,
A. (September, 2001). Participation in
district-wide assessments: A chapter for inclusion in the revised Iowa IEP
manual. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of
Children, Family, and Community Services. |
Kansas |
Kansas
Department of Education, Kansas State Assessments (2000).
Guidelines for determining state assessment accommodations for students with
disabilities. Topeka, KS. Kansas
Department of Education, Kansas State Assessments (1999).
Documentation of allowable accommodations for individual students for 2000
Kansas State Assessment.
Topeka, KS. |
Kentucky |
Kentucky
Department of Education (1999).
Inclusion of special populations in the state-required assessment and
accountability programs.
Frankfort, KY.
http://www.kde.state.ky.us/oaa/implement/inclusion/inclusions_default.asp. |
Louisiana |
Louisiana
Department of Education (2001).
Louisiana statewide norm-referenced testing program, 2001 test
administration manual, Grade 3. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Louisiana Department of Education (2001).
Louisiana statewide norm-referenced testing program, 2001 test
administration manual, Grades 5, 6, & 7. Itasca, IL: Riverside
Publishing.
Louisiana Department of Education (2001).
Louisiana statewide norm-referenced testing program, 2001 test
administration manual, Grade 9. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. |
Maine |
Maine
Department of Education (2001). The
Maine educational assessment, principal/test coordinator’s manual, all
grades. Augusta, ME. |
Maryland |
Maryland
State Department of Education (2000).
Requirements for accommodating, excusing, and exempting students in Maryland
assessment programs.
Baltimore, MD. |
Massachusetts |
Massachusetts Department of Education (2001).
Requirements for the participation of students with disabilities in the MCAS
(including test accommodations and alternate assessment): A guide for
educators and parents – Update. Boston, MA. |
Michigan |
Michigan
Educational Assessment Program (1995).
Testing guidelines for the Michigan high school proficiency test for
students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and dual
enrollment. Lansing, MI.
Michigan Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Early
Intervention Services (2001). Students with disabilities and the MEAP,
the MEAP with assessment accommodations, or alternate assessment: Questions
and answers. Lansing, MI |
Minnesota |
Minnesota
Department of Children, Families, and Learning (2001). Basic standards test: Guidelines for students with IEP or 504 plans.
Saint Paul, MN. |
Mississippi |
Mississippi Office of Academic Education (2001).
Mississippi curriculum content assessment system: Guidelines for students
with disabilities and English language learners. Jackson, MI. |
Missouri |
Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Division of Special
Education (2000). Issues in education technical assistance
bulletin: State and district-wide assessments of school achievement.
Jefferson City, MO. |
Montana |
Montana
Office of Public Instruction, Division of Special Education, Division of
Educational Opportunity and Equity (Title I Part A Program), and Division of
Measurement and Accountability (2001). Assessment handbook, Volume 2:
Accommodations and alternate assessment scale. Helena, MT. |
Nebraska |
Nebraska
Department of Education (2000).
School-based, teacher-led assessment and reporting system: Update # 1 & # 3.
Lincoln, NE.
Nebraska Special Education Advisory Council Ad Hoc Committee on Classroom
and District-wide Assessment Practices (March, 1998). Assessment practices and the inclusion of students with diverse
learning needs, volume one: A guide for educators and parents in Nebraska
public schools. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Education.
Nebraska Special Education Advisory Council Ad Hoc Committee on Alternate
Assessment (September, 2000). Assessment practices and the inclusion of
students with diverse learning needs, volume two: A guide for educators and
parents in Nebraska public schools. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of
Education. |
Nevada |
Nevada
Department of Education and WestEd (1998). Nevada’s high school proficiency examinations: A communication and
decision making guide for educators: Helping students with disabilities meet
Nevada standards. Carson City, NV. Nevada
Department of Education (2001).
Guidelines for the conduct of the Nevada Proficiency Examinations
Program. Carson City, NV. Nevada
Department of Education (2000).
Guidelines for the participation in the Skills and Competencies Alternate
Assessment of Nevada. Carson City, NV. |
New
Hampshire |
New
Hampshire Department of Education (2001).
Procedures for determining how each student will participate in the New
Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program. Concord, NH:
http://www.ed.state.nh.us/SpecialEd/Downloads/AppAccProc.pdf. |
New
Jersey |
New
Jersey Department of Education (1999).
Acceptable accommodations or modifications. Trenton, NJ. |
New
Mexico |
Pasternak, R. & Brown-Kovacic, C. (2000).
Memorandum: Guidance on special education assessment issues. Santa FE,
NM: State of New Mexico, Department of Education. State
of New Mexico, Department of Education (2000). Guidance to IEP team members on determining accommodations for
students participating in state-mandated assessments. Santa Fe, NM. Cohen,
M & Heumman, J. E. (2000). Memorandum:
Clarification of the role of the IEP team in selecting individual
accommodations, modifications in administration, and alternate assessments
for state and district-wide assessments of student achievement. Santa
FE, NM: State of New Mexico, Department of Education. |