2005 State Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

Synthesis Report 64

Sheryl S. Lazarus • Martha L. Thurlow • Kathryn E. Lail  • Kristin D. Eisenbraun • Kentaro Kato

September 2006

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., Eisenbraun, K. D., & Kato, K. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64). 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/Synthesis64/


Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Overview
Need to Update and Analyze
Process Used to Review State Policies
Organization of the Report
Section 1 – Participation Policies
Section 2 – Accommodation Policies
Summary
Conclusions
References
Appendix A. State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation
and Accommodation Policies

Appendix B. Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State


Executive Summary

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state policies on assessment participation and accommodations since 1992. The purpose of the current analysis is to update information on these policies that was last reported by NCEO in 2005 (based on 2003 data). The current analysis of states’ 2005 participation and accommodation policies found that state policies on participation and accommodation continue to evolve, and that they have become more detailed and specific than in previous years. Key findings from this analysis include:

  • Most states now have Web sites where users can access their policies.

  • Clarifications and specifications attached to specific participation policy variables and to specific accommodations (e.g., what tests accommodations can be used on) are increasing.

  • The "read aloud questions," "sign interpret questions," and "calculator" accommodations continue to be controversial.

  • The "spell checker" accommodation, though it continues to be controversial, appears to be more widely accepted than in the past.

  • Most states now permit the use of extended time with no restriction, though fewer states permit the "testing over multiple days" accommodation than in the past.

This analysis did not attempt to determine the degree to which state policies complied with federal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 or Title I of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Instead, it is a descriptive analysis of the written policies that states have for the participation of students with disabilities in assessments and the use of accommodations during their assessments.


Overview

Given that both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 and Title I of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 require the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments, it is important to study how they will participate and what, if any, accommodations will be used. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state policies that address participation and accommodations for students with disabilities since 1992, with the most recent analysis examining 2003 policies (Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2005). Each time that NCEO has examined state policies (Clapper et al., 2005; Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Robey, 2002; Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995a, 1995b; Thurlow, Seyfarth, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1997; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993), there have been significant changes from the previous analysis. Initially, these updates indicated that increasing numbers of states had policies on participation and accommodation. More recently, there have been qualitative changes as well: (1) increased specificity of the language used in policies, and (2) an increased number of written documents that are not only available online but also include many different parts such as policies, guidelines, and training manuals.


Need to Update and Analyze

The current update, based on 2005 policies and guidelines, sought answers to questions similar to those addressed in previous examinations of state policies. These questions included:

• How many states’ policies reflect participation options, such as selective and combination participation, out-of-level assessments, testing with modifications, and locally selected assessments beyond the three basic ones (i.e., general assessment without accommodations, general assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment)?

• Have states’ participation and accommodation policies changed substantially since 2003?

• How do accommodation policies address emerging issues (e.g., technology, reliability/validity issues)?

In the current report we have made several additions and adjustments to our analysis; these will be noted in the appropriate sections of the text. One key accommodation that we pulled out to document in this year’s report was the "speech/text" device. These devices, which included both text-to-speech devices (e.g., voice-output systems) and speech-to-text devices (e.g., voice-recognition systems), had previously been subsumed under the "communication device" category.

A major adjustment that was made was the addition of another category of use. In addition to the standard categories of allowed, allowed in certain circumstances, allowed with implications for scoring, and prohibited, we added a special category of allowed accommodations indicated by A*. These were accommodations that the state called "nonstandard" but that did not result in any changes in scores or aggregation procedures.


Process Used to Review State Policies

In general, procedures used for this analysis of states’ written participation and accommodation policies were similar to the procedures used in the past. As was the case in previous years, the information for this report was gathered through the examination and analysis of publicly available written documents. This is in contrast to other approaches that survey informed respondents and that may use a restricted list of accommodations.

Participation and accommodation policies for most states were obtained from states’ Web sites as of January 14, 2005. The initial compilation of data for each state was placed in a single document, referred to as a state profile. The profiles were mailed to states in June 2005. States were then asked to verify the information in their profiles by indicating whether: (1) the information was accurate, (2) they needed additional information in order to decide whether the information contained in their profiles was accurate, or (3) the profiles contained inaccurate information and that changes needed to be made to the profile. If a state requested changes to the profile, we required written documentation as to the source of those changes before accepting the changes. State officials were asked to return their edited profiles to us via mail, e-mail, or fax. The information from the verified state profiles was then placed in the tables contained in this report. A complete list of state documents used to compile information for this report is in Appendix A.

This analysis did not attempt to determine the degree to which state policies complied with federal requirements under IDEA or NCLB. Those determinations would need to be made by the appropriate federal authorities. This report is a descriptive analysis of the written policies that states have for the participation of students with disabilities in assessments and their use of accommodations during assessments.


Organization of the Report

In this update we summarize and categorize the extensive information contained in states’ participation and accommodation policies. As in past reports, presenting information in figures and tables makes it more accessible, but can sometimes obscure the underlying complexities of the individual state policies. For example, it is not apparent in any of the tables that state policies on participation and accommodations range in length from a few pages to hundreds of pages. This complexity is exacerbated by the burgeoning number of state documents addressing participation and accommodations that are currently available. Some states have policies in place with few or no related supporting documents, while others have, in addition to policies, a full complement of related materials such as procedural manuals and training guides. Other states have a wide range of procedural manuals and training guides on their Web sites, but no actual policy documents regarding participation and accommodations are available on the Web.

This report is divided into two sections. Section 1 addresses the information gathered on participation. Section 2 contains the review of states’ accommodation policies.

The full tables are included in Appendix B of this report while the summary figures and tables are provided in the main sections of the report. A comparison was made, where possible, to similar information from previous reports. All information in this report that refers to 2003 policies is from Clapper et al. (2005).


Section 1 – Participation Policies

Additional Testing Options

Some state participation policies included language about additional testing options beyond the three traditional testing options (i.e., general assessment without accommodations, general assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessment). These additional testing options included Selective Participation, Combination Participation, Out-of-Level Assessments, Testing with Modifications or Non-Standard Accommodations, and Locally Selected Assessments. Selective Participation means that students may take certain parts of the assessment without being required to take others, such as taking the math alternate assessment and no other assessments. Combination Participation means that students may take different parts of different tests, such as taking the reading alternate assessment, the math general assessment, and the science assessment with accommodations. Out-of-Level Assessments refers to the practice of allowing a student in one grade to take an assessment designed for another (usually lower) grade. Testing with Modifications or Non-Standard Accommodations is the term used when a state permits the administration of a test with modifications or nonstandard accommodations. These accommodations are typically considered to change what is being tested to an extent that invalidates a student’s score. Locally Selected Assessments are defined as assessments that school district staff select for students who are unable to participate in the general assessment even with accommodations.

Thirty-six state policies indicated that at least one additional testing option was available to students (see Figure 1). The participation policies in the remaining states did not indicate that additional testing options, beyond the traditional three, were available. Details on the policies of specific states are provided in Tables B.1 and B.2 in Appendix B. Figure 2 illustrates the specific type of additional testing option and the number of states that allow it. Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations is the largest category with 23 states allowing this testing option. Combination participation follows closely with 19 states allowing this option. For example, one state policy states that participation by content area is allowed; and, when two or more content areas are being assessed, such as reading, writing, and math, the student may take the general assessment in math but alternate assessments in reading and writing.

Changes Since 2003

It is difficult to compare the 2003 and 2005 data regarding additional testing options because a detailed analysis was conducted for two categories, selective and combination participation, for the first time in this update. This increased the number of states allowing additional testing options. However, if the selective and combination participation categories are removed for the sake of comparison, it appears as though additional testing options have increased from 20 states in 2003 to 33 states in 2005. This is in contrast to a trend from 2001 to 2003 when the number of states allowing additional options decreased from 33 states in 2001 to 20 in 2003.

Figure 1. Summary of Additional Testing Options

Figure 2. Summary of Types of Additional Testing Options

Circumstances in Which Students Are Not Included in any Form of Statewide Assessment

In addition to examining state policies on how students were included in statewide assessment programs, we also looked for circumstances in which students were not included in any form of state assessment.

As shown in Figure 3, 30 states specifically prohibited students from being excluded from statewide testing for any reason. Three states permitted exclusion in the case of parent exemption, 3 states permitted exclusion for emotional distress, and 11 states for medical conditions or illness, and 2 states permitted exclusion for absence during testing. Fourteen states also permitted students to be excluded from any form of statewide assessment in circumstances other than those noted in Figure 3. Examples of "other" circumstances included physician recommendation and family emergency. State specific information and details of "other" variables concerning the exclusion of students from statewide testing are located in Tables B.3 and B.4 in Appendix B.

Changes Since 2003

The number of state policies in 2005 that specifically stated that exclusion from statewide testing was prohibited increased from 16 states in 2003 prohibiting exclusion to 30 states in 2005. No states now permit the use of "Disruptive Behavior" and "Student Refusal" to justify the exclusion of a student from statewide testing; in 2003, the policies of two states indicated that those circumstances were a permissible reason to exclude a student. Eight states permitted "Parent Exemption" in 2003, but only three states allowed it in 2005.

Figure 3. Summary of Circumstances in Which Students Are Not Included in any Form of Statewide Assessment

Participation Decision-making Criteria—Allowed

Figure 4 summarizes the decision-making criteria that states used to determine how students with disabilities participate in statewide assessment systems. The criteria that states cited most frequently were: (1) IEP Determined (50 states); (2) Instructional Relevance/Instructional Goals (35 states); (3) Current Performance/Level of Functioning (34 states); and (4) Student Needs and Characteristics (26 states). Additional participation criteria that states used when making participation decisions are included in Tables B.5 and B.6 in Appendix B.

Changes Since 2003

After comparing the 2003 policy data (Clapper et al., 2005) with the 2005 policy data, several changes were apparent. In 2003, it was reported that all 50 states specifically stated that the IEP team decided how students participated in the statewide assessment and this number remained the same after looking at the 2005 policies. The number of states indicating that current performance/level of functioning could be considered increased from 19 states in 2003 to 34 states in 2005. In 2003, only 6 states permitted consideration of the content/purpose/nature of the assessment, but two years later 11 states permitted consideration of this variable. Fourteen additional states also allowed consideration of student needs and characteristics. More states permitted consideration of a student’s past performance (up from 6 to 10).

Figure 4. Summary of Participation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Make Decisions about How Students with Disabilities Will Participate in Statewide Assessment

Participation Decision-Making Criteria—Not Allowed

Many states listed criteria that cannot be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities will participate in statewide assessments. As shown in Figure 5, the criteria that were most frequently cited included (1) Presence or Category of a Disability (28 states); (2) Cultural, Social, Linguistic, or Environmental Factors (24 states); and (3) Excessive Absences (23 states). The policies of four states indicate that consideration of whether a student is receiving special education services cannot be used when decisions are made about how students will participate, while seven states indicate that achievement level may not be used. Detailed information on participation decision-making criteria for each state can be found in Tables B.7 and B.8 of Appendix B.

Figure 5. Summary of Participation Policy Variables That Cannot Be Used to Make Decisions About How Students with Disabilities will Participate in Statewide Assessment

Changes Since 2003

The number of states that cited variables that cannot be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities will participate in statewide assessments increased or remained the same from 2003 to 2005 for most categories. The largest increases occurred in the categories of "Cultural, Social, Linguistic, or Environmental Factors" (up from 14 to 24) and "Excessive Absenteeism" (up from 14 to 23).


Section 2 – Accommodation Policies

All states have policies that address issues related to the use of accommodations by students with disabilities in state assessments. This section of the report addresses state policy language concerning groups eligible to receive accommodations, criteria that states can and cannot use to make decisions about a student’s use of an accommodation, guidance for the use of accommodations that are not on an approved list, accommodations involving a third party to administer or record, and the use and impact of various types of accommodations.

Additional Student Groups Eligible for Accommodations

Accommodation policies may apply to students with IEPs, students with 504 plans, students who are both English language learners (ELLs) and have a disability, students who qualify for Title I services, or to all students. Some states also have separate accommodation policies for ELL students, but we did not track those policies for this report. Those readers interested in learning more about ELL policies are referred to Rivera, Collum, Shafer, and Sia (2005).

Figure 6 provides information about the extent to which various categories of students, in addition to ELL students or students with disabilities, used accommodations during statewide assessments. Forty-one states indicated in their policies that accommodations were to be provided to students who had a 504 plan. There were no state policies that indicated that no student groups, other than those students with IEPs or 504 plans, could use accommodations on the statewide assessments.

Two states allowed all students to use any standard accommodation without restrictions. Six states allowed all students to use standard accommodations under certain circumstances and with specific restrictions. For example, students with temporary disabilities (e.g., a broken arm) are permitted to use accommodations in some states.

Figure 6. Summary of Additional Student Groups Eligible for Accommodations

As in 2003, although we did not include ELL accommodation policies in our analysis, we did analyze whether states’ special education accommodation policies addressed students who have both an IEP and are ELLs. That is, in most cases, we could infer from the accommodations policies that the state provides accommodations for students who are ELLs and have an IEP, because ELL accommodations are mentioned within the sections of the document related to students with disabilities. The special education policies of 25 states had information about the use of accommodations for students who had both a disability and are ELL. More detail about additional student groups eligible for accommodations along with information on the extent to which each state included different student groups in their accommodation policies is provided in Tables B.9 through B.10 in Appendix B.

Changes Since 2003

The number of state policies that included students with a 504 plan increased from 33 states in 2003 to 41 states in 2005. In 2005, all states permitted at least one additional group of students, besides students with IEP plans, to use accommodations. This is up from 43 states in 2003. The number of states that had policies addressing accommodations for students who are both ELLs and have a disability increased from 13 states in 2003 to 25 states in 2005.

Accommodations Decision-making Criteria—Allowed

States use a variety of criteria to guide the process for making decisions on student use of accommodations. According to Figure 7, the policies of 47 states indicated that the use of instructional and classroom accommodations are to be considered when making decisions. Two other criteria that many states included in their policies were that the accommodations were selected based on individual student needs and characteristics (34 states) and that the accommodations maintained the validity of the test and the resulting scores (33 states).

Some states differentiated between the types of accommodations that may be provided on exit exams and other large-scale assessments or between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. The category of "Purpose/Nature of Assessment," is used to track whether different accommodations were permitted on different types of assessments in a state. In 10 states, the purpose or nature of the assessment was one of the criteria that the IEP team was instructed to consider when making decisions about the use of accommodations. See Tables B.11 and B.12 in Appendix B for more detailed information.

Changes Since 2003

In 2003, the policies of 21 states indicated that individual student needs/characteristics should be considered a criterion for making decisions about which assessment accommodations should be provided. By 2005, the number of states using this criterion increased to 34 states. The number of state accommodation policies specifically requiring that the accommodation maintain the validity of the test and resulting score decreased slightly from 35 states in 2003 to 33 states in 2005. Conversely, the number of states that considered the length of time the accommodation has been used increased from three to six states between 2003 and 2005.

Figure 7. Summary of Accommodation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Guide the Decision-making Process for Using Accommodations During Statewide Assessment

Accommodations Decision-making Criteria—Not Allowed

States also prohibited basing decisions about accommodations on certain criteria (see Figure 8). Policies generally listed fewer variables that could not be used in the decision-making process as compared to the number of variables that could be used. Twelve states do not permit consideration of the nature or category of a student’s disability. A few states indicated that Instructional Program/Program Setting (3 states), Percent Time/Amount of Services Received (4 states), or Administrative Convenience (1 state) may not be considered when making decisions about accommodations. No states permitted parents to request accommodations. Two states listed other criteria as well (e.g., the availability of an accommodation). State specific information, as well as information about other criteria, is provided in Tables B.13 and B.14 in Appendix B.

Figure 8. Summary of Accommodation Policy Variables That Cannot Be Used to Guide the Decision-making Process for Using Accommodations During Statewide Assessment

Changes Since 2003

For most categories there has been little or no change from 2003 in factors that cannot be used to guide the accommodations decision-making process; however, four additional state policies in 2005 do not allow the nature/category of the disability to be used to guide accommodations decisions (up from 8 to 12). In 2003, one state permitted consideration of parent request for accommodations; in 2005 no states permitted parent request.

Guidance for Using Accommodations That Are Not on the "Approved" List

A summary of the guidance for using accommodations that are not on an "approved" list in state accommodation policies is found in Figure 9. Thirty-three state policies advised IEP team members to seek approval from the State Board or Department of Education when suggesting the use of an accommodation not specifically found on the "approved" list. A committee review of the request to use an accommodation not previously approved was in seven state policies. Eight state policies required IEP team members to contact a specific individual at the state or district level when recommending a non-approved accommodation. No states specifically stated that non-approved accommodations could not be used. Detailed information for each state is located in Tables B.15 and B.16 in Appendix B.

Changes Since 2003

The number of state policies that require IEP team members to seek approval from a State Board or Department of Education when inquiring about accommodations not on the "approved" list increased from 26 states in 2003 to 33 states in 2005. The number of states that require a committee review of the accommodation in question increased by 3 states (up from 4 to 7) from 2003 to 2005. In 2003, four states required the IEP team members to contact a specific person at the state or district level; by 2005 it had increased to eight states.

Figure 9. Summary of Guidelines for Using Accommodations That Are Not on the "Approved" List

Guidelines for the Administration of Accommodations Involving a Third Party

Information was also collected on guidelines for accommodations involving a third party. This information is summarized in Figure 10. It should be noted that we changed the terminology that we used to describe this policy variable in this report. In the 2003 report, it was referred to as "accommodations involving another human to administer or record" (Clapper et al., 2005) while in this report we refer to "accommodations involving a third party." For example, an individual who serves as an intermediary between the student and the mode of access to the test would be considered a third party. A state’s guidelines might then define the role of the scribe when the IEP team had selected dictation of answers as an accommodation, prescribe conditions for reading test items aloud if the IEP team had selected reading test items as an accommodation, or provide guidance to sign language interpreters. For this analysis, we accepted anything the state produced as a written guideline. In other words, no quality criteria were imposed. Thirty-three states provided written guidelines for scribes in their accommodation policies. Guidelines for readers and sign language interpreters were provided in 26 and 20 state policies, respectively. Detailed information for each state is located in Table B.17 in Appendix B.

Changes Since 2003

The number of states that provided guidelines for accommodations involving a third party increased from 30 states in 2003 to 40 states in 2005. The number of states with guidelines for scribes increased from 26 states in 2003 to 33 states in 2005. More states also had guidelines for readers in 2005 (up from 20 to 26). The same number of states (20) included guidelines for sign language interpreters in both years.

Figure 10. Summary of Guidelines for the Administration of Accommodations Involving a Third Party

Types of Accommodations and Impact of Use

In this section of the report, the accommodations that states most often allow, allow with restrictions, and prohibit are reviewed. We organized the accommodations into five categories: presentation accommodations, equipment and materials accommodations, response accommodations, scheduling/timing accommodations, and setting accommodations.

We also analyzed how the states’ policies indicated that the accommodations were to be used: (1) Allowed (A)—if the accommodation is used, the student must be given the score she or he earned, the student’s score must be aggregated, and the score must be used for accountability purposes; (2) Allowed (A*)—an added category for those situations in which an accommodation was called non-standard, but the state either did not provide a definition of what non-standard meant, or did not explicitly state that there were implications for scoring for using that accommodation—often the state indicated that there were no scoring implications; (3) Allowed in certain circumstances (AC)—the accommodation is allowed on some assessments and not others; (4) Allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation (AI)—if the accommodation is used, the student automatically receives a certain score (e.g., zero or below basic) or the score is not aggregated; and (5) Prohibited (P)—the use of this accommodation on statewide and district-wide testing is not permitted.

Presentation Accommodations

Presentation accommodations alter the way in which a test is presented to a student. Table 1 provides a summary of the presentation accommodations documented in state accommodation policies. State specific detailed information about these accommodations is included in Tables B.18 through B.20 in Appendix B. The policies of 48 states allow the large print accommodation. Forty-eight states also permit the use of braille, though four states put some restrictions on the braille accommodation.

"Read aloud" is represented in this analysis as two separate accommodations: read aloud directions and read aloud questions. "Read aloud directions" is permitted in all circumstances in 42 states, with one of these states (North Dakota) indicating it is an accommodation that may affect the interpretation of individual tests, but not one that if it is used will affect what is done with the student’s score. An additional state permits read aloud directions in certain circumstances. "Read aloud questions" continues to be one of the more controversial accommodations. That is, there was a lack of consensus across states as to whether this accommodation should be allowed or allowed with restrictions. Although 45 states permitted test questions to be read aloud, only eight states permitted this accommodation without any restrictions; however, six of these states called this accommodation "nonstandard" or something similar, although they treated it the same as an "approved" accommodation (i.e., no scoring or aggregation implications). Twenty-six states permitted questions to be read aloud only in certain circumstances (e.g., on the math test, but not on the reading test). The policies of 11 other states allowed questions to be read aloud in certain circumstances and also indicated that there were implications for scoring and or aggregation if this accommodation was used.

Sign interpretation is also represented in this analysis as two separate accommodations: sign directions and sign questions. Forty-four states permitted directions to be signed without restriction, again with one of these indicating its use may affect interpretation of individual scores, but that nothing will happen regarding scoring or aggregation. One additional state allowed this accommodation in certain circumstances. Thirty-nine states permitted questions to be signed. Fourteen of these allowed this accommodation without restriction, although six states called the accommodation nonstandard without implications for scoring or aggregation. As with the read aloud accommodation, it is more controversial to sign questions than to sign directions (but it is apparently less controversial to sign questions than to read questions aloud). As indicated in Table B.20 in Appendix B there were more limitations placed on sign interpretation of reading tests than sign interpretation of mathematics tests.

As shown in Table 1, 40 states permitted, without restriction (although two called it "nonstandard"), directions to be repeated, re-read, or clarified. Visual cues were permitted in 28 states, administration by someone other than the usual test administrator was permitted in 18 states, and the use of additional examples was permitted in 9 states.

In addition to the accommodations listed in Table 1, 29 states had other presentation accommodations. These accommodations included audiotape presentation of the test directions or items (18 states), reducing the number of test items per page (8 states), and reading aloud of the test by the student (4 states), among others.

Changes Since 2003

In both 2003 and 2005, most states permitted questions to be read aloud with restrictions (e.g., in certain circumstances or with implications or scoring). In general, this was similar for signing questions. In contrast, states generally allowed most of the other presentation accommodations without restrictions in increasing numbers from 2003 to 2005 (e.g., Braille without restrictions increased from 38 states in 2003 to 44 states in 2005).

Equipment and Material Accommodations

Equipment and material accommodations are changes in the conditions of the assessment setting that involve the introduction of certain types of tools and assistive devices. Table 2 provides a summary of the equipment and material accommodations documented in state policies. Most are related to the presentation of the test, but some are related to response, such as using a calculator or abacus. The use of magnification and amplification equipment, templates and graph paper, special lighting and acoustics, adaptive furniture, and noise buffers was permitted in the majority of states. The calculator accommodation was the most controversial. It was mentioned in the policies of 41 states, allowed without restriction in 19 states (although five of these called it "nonstandard"), and allowed in certain circumstances in 14 states. One state allowed the calculator accommodation with implications for scoring. In addition, seven states allowed it both in certain circumstances and with implications for scoring (AC/AI).

Thirty-eight states permitted the use of other equipment and materials accommodations that are not listed in Table 1, such as pencil grips, which were allowed in 19 states, and colored overlays, which were allowed in 11 states. Additional details about the equipment/material accommodations can be found in Tables B.21-B.23 in Appendix B.

Table 1. Number of States that Allow or Prohibit Selected Presentation Accommodationsa

 

 Accommodation

Type of Accommodation/Impact of Useb

A

A*

AC

AI

AC/AI

P

 Large Print

48

0

0

0

0

0

 Braille

44

2

1

0

1

0

 Read Aloud Directions

41

1

1

0

0

0

 Read Aloud Questions

2

6

26

0

11

0

 Sign Interpret Directions

43

1

1

0

0

0

 Sign Interpret Questions

8

6

19

0

6

0

 Repeat/Re-Read/Clarify Directions

38

2

0

0

0

0

 Visual Cues

25

1

1

0

1

0

 Administration by Others

17

0

1

0

0

0

 Familiar Examiner

21

0

1

0

0

0

 Additional Examples

8

1

0

0

0

0

a In addition to the presentation accommodations listed in this table, 29 states have other presentation accommodations. See Table B.20 in Appendix B for details.
b A = allowed; A* = non-standard, but no implications for scoring or aggregation; AC = allowed in certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for scoring; AC/AI = allowed and certain circumstances and there are implications for scoring; P= prohibited

Definitions:
Large Print = all parts of the assessment are in large print.
Braille = all parts of the assessment are presented in Braille.
Read Aloud Directions = the directions portion of the assessment is read to the student.
Read Aloud Questions = the assessment items are read to the student items).
Sign Interpret Directions = directions portion of the assessment presented to the student via sign language
Sign Interpret Questions = assessment items presented to the student via sign language
Read/Re-read/Clarify Directions = directions may be clarified through restatement for the student
Visual Cues = additional visual cues are provided for students, such as arrows or stickers
Administration by Others = someone other than regular test administrator gives test to the student (e.g., special or regular education teacher)
Familiar Examiner = someone other than regular test examiner who the student knows and has worked with in the past gives the test to the student (e.g., special education teacher)
Additional Examples = in response to student request for more information or clarification, test administrator can supply additional examples to assist the student

Changes Since 2003

As was the case in previous reports, with the exception of the calculator and abacus accommodations, most of the equipment and material accommodations were considered non-controversial in 2005. For example, in 2005, no states prohibited the use of a calculator, down from one state in 2003. More states allowed the use of templates/graph paper and abacuses without restriction than in 2003.

Table 2. Number of States that Allow or Prohibit Selected Equipment/Material Accommodationsa

 

 Accommodation

Type of Accommodation/Impact of Useb

A

A*

AC

AI

AC/AI

P

 Magnification Equipment

42

0

0

0

0

0

 Amplification Equipment

39

0

1

0

0

0

 Light/Acoustics

33

0

0

0

0

0

 Calculator

14

5

14

1

7

0

 Templates/Graph paper

38

1

0

0

0

0

 Audio/Video Equipment

17

0

1

0

0

0

 Noise Buffer

31

0

1

0

0

0

 Adaptive/Special Furniture

32

0

0

0

0

0

 Abacus

20

0

6

0

2

0

 Manipulatives

12

1

0

1

5

1

a In addition to the equipment and materials accommodations listed in this table, 38 states have other equipment and materials accommodations. See Table B.32 in Appendix B.23 for details.
b A = allowed; A* = non-standard, but no implications for scoring or aggregation; AC = allowed in certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for scoring; AC/AI = allowed and certain circumstances and there are implications for scoring; P= prohibited

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., 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 calculator
Templates/Graph Paper = Place markers or templates used to mark location of focus on the test.
Audio/Video Equipment = 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 (e.g., for sitting upright)
Abacus = abacus or similar counting tools.
Manipulatives = Learning materials that are operated with the hands (e.g., math cubes, counters).

Response Accommodations

Response accommodations are changes in how a student responds to elements of the assessment process. Table 3 summarizes the response accommodations documented by states. There was no general consensus across states for whether many of the response accommodations should be permitted in all circumstances or only with restrictions. For example, as indicated in Table 3, most states permitted the use of a computer or machine to provide responses on state assessments (44 states allowed it in some capacity); however, only 28 states allow it without restrictions (although three of them called it "nonstandard"). When computers were mentioned as an allowed accommodation, it was often with special instructions regarding the availability of the spell checking function. The use of a brailler is also permitted by the majority of states; it is permitted without restriction in 35 states (with one state calling it "nonstandard") and allowed with restrictions in 3 states. Other commonly used response accommodations include writing in test booklets, use of a tape recorder, and pointing. Sixteen states allowed the use of speech/text devices without restriction (with two of these states calling them "nonstandard"), while two states allowed their use only in certain circumstances, and one state allowed them in certain circumstances and with implications for scoring and/or aggregation.

Twenty-one states also permitted the use of other response accommodations that are not listed in Table 3. These included the use of adapted paper (6 states) and a thesaurus (6 states). For additional information on these accommodations as well as more detailed information on the response accommodations, see Tables B.24-B.26 in Appendix B.

Changes Since 2003

In both the 2003 and 2005 reports, there was no general consensus among states regarding which response accommodations should be allowed without restriction, but there was a clear trend toward more states permitting the use of accommodations in this group without restriction. For example, while in 2003 five states allowed the use of spell checkers without restriction, in 2005 this number had more than doubled to12 states. Increases in the number of states allowing accommodations without restriction also occurred with the tape recorder and sign responses accommodations. This is the first report that has had a separate category for speech/text devices. These devices had previously been included under communication devices.

Table 3. Number of States that Allow or Prohibit Selected Response Accommodationsa

 

 Accommodation

Type of Accommodation/Impact of Useb

A

A*

AC

AI

AC/AI

P

 Proctor/Scribe

33

4

6

0

5

0

 Computer or Machine

25

3

16

0

0

0

 Write in Test Booklets

35

0

4

1

0

0

 Tape Recorder

33

0

5

0

0

0

 Communication Device

22

2

3

0

1

0

 Spell Checker/Assistance

12

4

6

1

6

2

 Brailler

34

1

2

1

0

0

 Sign Responses to Sign
 Language Interpreter

25

2

2

0

1

0

 Pointing

18

1

2

0

0

0

 Speech/Text Device

14

2

2

0

1

0

a In addition to the response accommodations listed in this table, 22 states have other response accommodations. See Table B.26 in Appendix B for details.
b A = allowed; A* = non-standard, but no implications for scoring or aggregation; AC = allowed in certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for scoring; AC/AI = allowed and certain circumstances and there are implications for scoring; P= prohibited

Definitions:
Proctor/Scribe = student responds verbally and a proctor or scribe then translates this to an answer sheet; for writing extended responses, specific instructions about how spelling or punctuation may be included.
Computer or Machine = computer or other machine (e.g., typewriter)
Write in Test Booklet = responses may be written in the test booklet rather than on answer sheets
Tape Recorder = student’s verbal responses are tape recorded, generally for later description.
Communication Device = various devices for the student to use in giving responses (e.g., symbol boards).
Spell checker/Assistance = spell checker either as a separate device or within a word-processing program, or print materials (e.g., glossary, dictionary).
Brailler = device or computer that generates responses in Braille.
Pointing = student points to response and staff member translates this onto an answer sheet.

Scheduling/Timing Accommodations

Scheduling/timing accommodations are changes in the timing or scheduling of an assessment and are summarized in Table 4. The most frequently allowed accommodations in this category were extended time and testing with breaks. Forty-one states allowed extended time with no restrictions (with two of these calling it "nonstandard"), three states allowed it in certain circumstances, and one state allowed it in certain circumstances and with implications for scoring. The testing with breaks accommodation was permitted by 42 states without restriction (again, two of these states called it "nonstandard"). One additional state also allowed this accommodation with restriction. The only accommodation in this category that was prohibited by a state was taking the test over multiple days, which was prohibited by one state.

Twenty-two states listed other scheduling/timing accommodations that were not listed in Table 4. Among these other accommodations were administering subtests in a different order (11 states) and flexible scheduling (10 states). Additional information on these other accommodations as well as detailed information about the scheduling/timing accommodations can be found in Tables B.27-B.29 in Appendix B.

Changes Since 2003

The extended time accommodation has become less controversial since 2003, with the number of states allowing extended time on a test without restriction increasing. Over the same time period fewer states allowed test-taking in multiple sessions without restriction.

Table 4. Number of States that Allow or Prohibit Selected Scheduling/Timing Accommodationsa

 

 Accommodation

Type of Accommodation/Impact of Useb

A

A*

AC

AI

AC/AI

P

 Extended Time

39

2

3

0

1

0

 With Breaks

40

2

1

0

0

0

 Multiple Sessions

23

0

5

0

0

0

 Time Beneficial to Student

37

0

0

0

0

0

 Over Multiple Days

17

1

3

0

0

1

a In addition to the scheduling/timing accommodations listed in this table, 22 states have other scheduling/timing accommodations. See Table B.29 in Appendix B for details.
b A = allowed; A* = non-standard, but no implications for scoring or aggregation; AC = allowed in certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for scoring; AC/AI = allowed and certain circumstances and there are implications for scoring; P= prohibited

Definitions:
Extended Time = student may take long than the time typically allowed
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
Over Multiple Days = administered over several days when it is normally administered in one day.
 

Setting Accommodations

Setting accommodations are changes in the test location or environment. These accommodations include individual or small group administration, administration in a separate room or carrel, and the proximity of the student’s seat to the test administrator. The results of our analysis are displayed in Table 5.

Forty-five states permitted testing of students in small groups with no states restricting the use of this accommodation. Forty-five states also permitted the testing of students individually with no states restricting its use. The most controversial of the setting accommodations was testing students in their homes. Eighteen states allowed students to be tested in their home with no restrictions, although one state called this a nonstandard accommodation (without implications for scoring or aggregation), and six states allowed it in certain circumstances.

It is important to note that even though we documented that only 13 states allowed the "testing of students in the special education classroom" accommodation with no restrictions, the policies of many additional states implied that this accommodation was permitted. It is likely that individualized or small group testing occurred in the special education classroom, but unless a policy explicitly stated that testing in the special education classroom was allowed as an accommodation, we did not mark it as allowed in this report.

Fourteen states listed other setting accommodations in their policies, such as testing in a hospital (9 states) and freedom/opportunity to move around the room (4 states). See Tables B.30-B.32 for additional information about the other accommodations and for more detailed specifications regarding setting accommodations.

Changes Since 2003

Much like in 2003, in 2005 most of the accommodations in this category were not controversial; however, for all eight setting accommodations that we track, the number of states allowing the use of each without restriction decreased from 2003 to 2005. The most dramatic decreases were in the separate room (38 states in 2003 to 31 states in 2005), minimize distractors (28 states in 2003 to 19 states in 2005), and special education classroom (22 states in 2003 to 13 states in 2005) accommodations.

Table 5. Number of States that Allow or Prohibit Selected Setting Accommodationsa

 

 Accommodation

Type of Accommodation/Impact of Useb

A

A*

AC

AI

AC/AI

P

 Individual

45

0

0

0

0

0

 Small Group

45

0

0

0

0

0

 Carrel

35

0

1

0

0

0

 Separate Room

31

0

1

0

0

0

 Seat Location/Proximity

33

0

1

0

0

0

 Minimize Distractions

19

0

0

0

0

0

 Student’s Home

17

1

6

1

0

0

 Special Education Classroom

13

0

1

0

0

0

a In addition to the setting accommodations listed in this table, 14 states have other setting accommodations. See Table B.32 in Appendix B for details.
b A = allowed; A* = non-standard, but no implications for scoring or aggregation; AC = allowed in certain circumstances; AI = allowed with implications for scoring; AC/AI = allowed and certain circumstances and there are implications for scoring; P= prohibited

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
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
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


Summary

The 2005 participation and accommodation policies continue to reflect the conclusion reached by Clapper et al. (2005) for the 2003 policies:

State policies on participation and accommodations continue not only to evolve, but to evolve at a rapid pace. In addition, to the increased rate of change, the volume of both written and online materials regarding participation and accommodations is also increasing. Many states now have a variety of documents available online (e.g., policies, handouts for parents and teachers, training materials, rules and procedures) that provide guidance (p. 23).

There are also a number of additional noteworthy changes since 2003 that are summarized here.

Participation Policies

In many cases the language in the participation policies is becoming more detailed and seeks to clarify when and how students with disabilities participate in statewide assessments. The policies also now focus more on the assessment and on current information about the students rather than on historic data. For example, many more states in 2005 included current performance or level of functioning, content purpose or nature of assessment, and student needs and characteristics as participation policy variables that can be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities participate in statewide assessment than had in 2003. Many more states also now indicate that excessive absences and cultural, social, linguistic, and environmental factors may not be considered in the decision-making process. In 2005, fewer states allowed the consideration of instructional relevance/instructional goals when decisions were made about how students with disabilities will participate than in the past.

Accommodation Policies

As with participation policies, we found that the language in the accommodation policies has become more specific. Historically, accommodations were sometimes seen as a way to enable some students with disabilities to participate in statewide assessments, and there was often little consideration of when it was appropriate to use a given accommodation. That approach is changing. For example, more states are now distinguishing between accommodations that can be used on a math test (but not a reading test). We also found that there continues to be wide variability in accommodation policies across states. The current research base that seeks to validate accommodations remains limited (although growing); our results indicate that states are continuing to grapple with how to appropriately use accommodations to enable some students with disabilities to meaningfully participate in statewide assessments. According to Thurlow, Thompson, and Lazarus (2006), "states now seem to be honing in on the need to clarify the purpose of the test and the construct being tested, rather than just the goal of providing the student with access to the testing situation" (p. 662).

The read aloud questions accommodation remains very controversial and there is little consensus between states as to how and when it should be used. Between 2003 and 2005 more states also put limitations on the use of the sign interpretation of questions accommodation.

Some of the response accommodations that rely on technology remain controversial; but, at least in some cases, they appear to be more widely accepted than in the past. Sixteen states now allow the use of the spell checker accommodation without restriction (four of these call it nonstandard; even if these are not counted, the remaining 12 are far above the five states that allowed spell checkers in 2003). This is the first time that we have specifically analyzed state policies to see if the use of speech/text devices was an allowed accommodation. This emerging technology was addressed in the policies of 18 states—and allowed without restriction in 15.

The extended time accommodation has become less controversial since the last report and most states now allow this accommodation without restriction. There was, however, less consensus between states on whether or not the administration of tests over multiple days is an acceptable accommodation in 2005 than in previous reports. States apparently see a trade-off between the use of the "extended time" accommodation and the "over multiple days" accommodation. States may be concerned about test security issues when the test is administered over multiple days, though for those students with disabilities who tire easily, testing over multiple days may be a more appropriate accommodation than extended time.

In 2005, the policies of fewer states mentioned some commonly provided accommodations than had been included in the past. Several of the setting accommodations that are not generally considered controversial (e.g., separate room, minimize distractions, special education classroom) were less frequently found in policies in 2005 than in past reports. Perhaps states believe that these accommodations are so generally accepted that there is no need to include specific mention of them in the policies—though there is the risk that, without them being explicitly included in the policy, some students may not have access to an accommodation that may be needed.


Conclusions

Participation and accommodation policies continue to evolve—and as noted above, there have been a number of key changes since 2003—but states appear to have a better understanding of key issues than in the past. States seem to better recognize the need to clarify and specify when and how participation policy variables and various accommodations are used. States, however, need to carefully consider the possible implications of deleting participation and accommodation policy variables from policies that might be assumed to be general knowledge or common practice. Some types of technology (e.g., spell checkers, speech/text devices), though still controversial, seem to be more generally accepted than in the past. It is also notable that most states now permit the use of the extended time accommodation with restriction.

States will continue to grapple with many complex concerns and requirements related to accommodations. This analysis indicates that many states have developed participation and accommodation policies that reflect the grappling they have done and that for the time at least should serve them well.


References

Clapper, A. T., Morse, A. B., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). 2003 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Rivera, C., Collum, E., Shafer, L., & Sia Jr., J. K. (2005). An analysis of state assessment policies addressing the accommodation of English language learners. In Rivera (Ed.) A national review of state policy and practice for English language learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

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., 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.

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., Thompson, S.J. & Lazarus, S.S. (2006). Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more. In Downing, S. M. & Haladyna, T. M. (Ed.), Handbook of Test Development (pp. 653-673). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc.

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.


Appendix A. State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation
and Accommodation Policies

Table A.1: State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation and Accommodation Policies

State

 

Alabama

Alabama State Department of Education (2003). Alabama Student Assessment Program Policies and Procedures for Students of Special Populations, Bulletin No. 11. Montgomery, AL.  Retrieved 9-14-04 from http://www.alsde.edu/html/doc_download.asp?id=1540&section=65

 

 

 

Alabama State Department of Education, Division of Student Assessment (August 2004). Update on the Alabama Statewide Assessment Program and Related Issues for Students with Disabilities. Montgomery, AL.  Retrieved 9-14-04 from http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/doc_download.asp?section=65&id=1054

Alaska

Alaska Department of Education & Early Development (August 2004). Participation Guidelines for Alaska Students in State Assessments. Juneau, AK.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/participation%20guidelines/participationguidelinesfinal.pdf

Arizona

Arizona Department of Education (December 2004). Administration of AIMS HS, AIMS DPA, TerraNova to Students Requiring Accommodations. Phoenix, AZ.

Arkansas

Arkansas Department of Education (no date). Student Participation in Statewide Assessment: Guidelines for IEP Team Decision-Making (Appendix B). Little Rock, AR.

 

 

 

Arkansas Department of Education (January 2005). Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment & Accountability Program (ACTAAP): District and School Test Coordinators' Manual. Little Rock, AR.

California

California Department of Education (February 2004).  California Alternate Performance Assessment Participation Criteria. Sacramento, CA.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/sr/documents/partcrtra.pdf

 

 

 

California Department of Education (2003). STAR Program: Testing Students Out-of-Level and/or with Accommodations or Modifications and Returning Answer Documents for Scoring: CSTs and CAT/6, Survey. Sacramento, CA.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/sa/documents/yr03wb0131attf.pdf

 

 

 

California Department of Education (July 2004). Questions and Answers about California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) Test Variations. Sacramento, CA.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/qandatestvar.pdf

 

 

 

California Department of Education (February 2004).  STAR Coordinator/Special Education Administrator Web cast Training (power point). Sacramento, CA.

 

 

 

California Department of Education (November 2004). Matrix of Test Variations, Accommodations, and Modifications of California Statewide Assessments. Sacramento, CA.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/matrix5.pdf

 

 

 

California Department of Education (December 2004).  California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) Scribe and Sign Language Guidelines. Sacramento, CA.

Colorado

Colorado Department of Education, Special Education Services Unit (Fall 2002). Accommodations and the CSAP. Denver, CO.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/csap/acc/qa.pdf 

 

 

 

Colorado Department of Education (no date).  Understanding CSAP Accommodations. Denver, CO.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/csap/acc/handouts.pdf

 

 

 

Colorado Department of Education, Student Assessment Unit (September 2004).  2004-2005 Procedures Manual for the Colorado Student Assessment Program.  Denver, CO.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/csap/2004/2004_2005CSAPProcManFinal.pdf

 

 

 

Colorado Department of Education, Special Education Services Unit (Fall 2003).  Colorado State Assessments and Students with Disabilities. Denver, CO.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/FF-CSAP2003.pdf

 

 

 

Colorado Department of Education, Special Education Services Unit (no date).  Students with Special Needs and the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) (brochure). Denver, CO.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/CSAP-spcl_nds_Brochure.pdf

Connecticut

Connecticut Department of Education, Division of Evaluation and Research (December 2002). Assessment Guidelines (9th Edition).  Hartford, CT. Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/der/s-t/testing/agl/agl_9th_edition.pdf

Delaware

Delaware Department of Education (April 2004). Delaware Student Testing Program:  Guidelines for the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and Students with Limited English Proficiency. Dover, DE. Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.doe.state.de.us/aab/2004-2005%20Inlusion%20Guidelines.pdf

Florida

Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services (2003). Accommodations and Modifications: What Parents Need to Know. Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/fcat/acmodpar.pdf

 

 

 

Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services (2004). Information for Parents and Teachers-Planning FCAT Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Tallahassee, FL.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/fcat/fcat-tea.pdf

 

 

 

Florida Department of Education, Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services (2004). Information for Parents-FCAT Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Tallahassee, FL.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/commhome/fcat/fcat-par.pdf

 

 

 

Florida Department of Education (2005). The IEP Team's Guide to FCAT Accommodations. Tallahassee, FL.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.firn.edu/doe/bin00014/pdf/fcatteam.pdf

Georgia

Georgia Department of Education (August 2004). Georgia Student Assessment Program: Student Assessment Handbook 2004-2005. Atlanta, GA.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/curriculum/testing/handbook_1.pdf and http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/curriculum/testing/handbook_2.pdf

Hawaii

Hawaii State Department of Education (2004). Student Participation Information Handbook.  Honolulu, HI.

Idaho

Idaho Department of Education (2004).  Idaho Statewide Testing Program-Test Coordinator's Guide 2004-2005. Boise, ID.  Retrieved 9-1-04 from http://www.sde.state.id/us/instruct/docs/counseling/testcoguide.pdf

Illinois

Illinois State Board of Education (2005). Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) - Test Administration Manual: Grades 3, 4, and 5 Census Tests. Springfield, IL. Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/PDF/2005_ISAT_TAM_345.pdf

 

 

 

Illinois State Board of Education (2005). Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT)- District and School Coordination Manual. Springfield, IL.  Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/PDF/2005_ISAT_District_Manual.pdf

 

 

 

Illinois State Board of Education (September 2004).  Participation Guidelines Form for the Illinois Alternate Assessment. Springfield, IL.  Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.isbe.net/assessment/iaapartguide.htm

Indiana

Indiana Department of Education, Center for Assessment, Research, and Information Technology (2004).  Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+) Program Manual 2004-2005. Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.doe.state.in.us/istep/progman04-05.html

Iowa

Iowa Department of Education (September 2003). Participation Guidelines. Des Moines, IA. Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/cfcs/altassess/doc/apg.pdf

 

 

 

Iowa Department of Education (no date).  Guidelines for the Inclusion of English Language Learners (ELLs) in K-12 Assessments.  Des Moines, IA.  Retrieved 1-11-05 from http://www.state.ia.us/educate/ecese/is/ell/doc/guidelines04.html

Kansas

Kansas Department of Education (July 2001). Kansas Special Education Process Handbook-Participation in General State Assessments and District-Wide Assessments (Chapter 4). Topeka, KS. Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.kansped.org/ksde/ph01/ch4.html

 

 

 

Kansas Department of Education (2004). Kansas Modified Assessments-Eligibility Criteria and Overview. Topeka, KS.  Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.kansped.org/ksde/assmts/ksmodass05.pdf

 

 

 

Kansas Department of Education (2001). Kansas Guidelines for Determining State Assessment Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Topeka, KS.  Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.kansped.org/ksde/assmts/9assmts.pdf

 

 

 

Kansas Department of Education (2003). Kansas Alternate Assessment Manual-Administration Guidelines and Procedures for all Participants. Topeka, KS.  Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.kansped.org/ksde/assmts/kaamanual03.pdf

Kentucky

Kentucky Department of Education (February 2004). Inclusion of Special Populations In the State-Required Assessment And Accountability Programs 703 KAR 5:070. Frankfort, KY.  Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+Reporting/default.htm

Louisiana

Louisiana Department of Education (no date). Special Populations Disability Guidelines-Louisiana Educational Assessment Program Guidelines for Selecting Test Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Baton Rouge, LA.  Retrieved 9-17-04 from http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/1615.pdf

 

 

 

Louisiana Department of Education (2005). LEAP/GEE 21 District and School Test Coordinators Manual. Baton Rouge, LA.

 

 

 

Louisiana Department of Education (May 2004). Louisiana Alternate Assessment (LAA) Participation Criteria. Baton Rouge, LA.

Maine

Maine Department of Education (September 2004). 2004-2005 Policies and Procedures for Accommodations and Alternate Assessment to the MEA. Augusta, ME.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://mainegov-images.informe.org/education/mea/PoliciesProcedures.pdf

 

 

 

Maine Department of Education (no date).  Maximizing Accommodations for Students with Unique Learning Needs. Augusta, ME.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.state.me.us/education/mea/masuln.htm

 

 

 

Maine Department of Education (August 2000).  Accommodations? Modifications? and Other Challenging Questions About Local Assessment Systems.  Augusta, ME.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.state.me.us/education/mea/accommodif.htm

Maryland

Maryland State Department of Education (August 2004). Requirements for Accommodating, Excusing, and Exempting Students in Maryland Assessment Programs. Baltimore, MD.

 

 

 

Maryland State Department of Education (2003).  ALT-MSA Participation Guidelines.  Baltimore, MD.  Retrieved 10-1-04 from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/testing/alt_msa

 

 

 

Maryland State Department of Education (May 2003).  Test Administration and Coordination Manual.  Baltimore, MD.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of Education (2005). Requirements for the Participation of Students with Disabilities in MCAS. Malden, MA. Retrieved 10-1-04 from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/spedreq.pdf

Michigan

Michigan Department of Education (2003).  Draft Guidelines for Determining Participation in State Assessment for Students with Disabilities.  Lansing, MI.  Retrieved 11-1-04 from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/DraftGuidelinesforAssessment_Feb03_59642_7.pdf

 

 

 

Michigan Department of Education (Winter 2005).  MEAP Test Administrator Manual. Lansing, MI.  Retrieved 11-1-04 from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Winter_2005_Test_Administrator_Manual_12-01-04_110837_7.pdf

 

 

 

Michigan Department of Education (2004).  2004/2005 MI-Access Training Materials.  Lansing, MI.  Retrieved 11-1-04 from http://www.mi-access.info/training/trainsec2.pdf

Minnesota

Minnesota Department of Education (September 2004).  2004-2005 Guidelines for Accommodations in the Minnesota Assessment System. Roseville, MN.  Retrieved 11-1-04 from http://education.state.mn.us/content/080571.pdf

Mississippi

Mississippi Department of Education (April 2004).  Mississippi Statewide Assessment System Guidelines for Testing Special Populations: Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners. Jackson, MS.  Retrieved 11-1-04 from http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/acad/osa/specpop.html

Missouri

Missouri Department of Education (no date).  Missouri Assessment Program: Definitions for Accommodations for Students with Disabilities.  Jefferson City, MO.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/assess/MAP_Accommodations_Definitions.pdf

 

 

 

University of Missouri, Columbia-Center for Innovations in Education (no date).  Including Students with Disabilities in the Missouri Assessment Program: Information Packet, Making Decisions about Participation and Accommodation (Chapter 3). Columbia, MO.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.cise.missouri.edu/publications/map/ch03.html

 

 

 

University of Missouri, Columbia - Center for Innovations in Education (no date).  Including Students with Disabilities in the Missouri Assessment Program:  Information Packet, Understanding the Missouri Assessment Program (Chapter 2).  Columbia, MO.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.cise.missouri.edu/publications/map/ch02.html

Montana

Montana Office of Public Instruction (January 2002).  Assessment Handbook, Volume 3, Accommodations and Alternate Assessment Scale. Helena, MT.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.opi.state.mt.us/PDF/Assessment/2002handbookV3.pdf

 

 

 

Montana Office of Public Instruction (Spring 2004).  The Iowa Tests -Montana Guide for Test Coordinators and Administrators.  Helena, MT.

 

 

 

Montana Office of Public Instruction (January 2005). MontCAS, Phase 2, Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT) Test Coordinator's Manual.  Helena, MT.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://opi.state.mt.us/PDF/Assessment/05CRTTCMan.pdf

 

 

 

Montana Office of Public Instruction (no date)  How to Include Students with Disabilities in Montana's Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT).  Helena, MT.

Nebraska

Nebraska Department of Education (2004).  STARS Update #16, Statewide Writing Assessment for 2004-2005.  Lincoln, NE.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/stars/documents/Update16_001.pdf

 

 

 

Nebraska Department of Education (November 2004). Accommodations Questions from October 2004 Special Populations Regional Workshop Participants.  Lincoln, NE.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SPED/documents/QUESTIONSaccommodations.pdf

 

 

 

Nebraska Department of Education (November 2004).  Assessment of Students with Disabilities: ESU 2 Presentation.  Lincoln, NE.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SPED/documents/Assessmentpres.ESU211.2004forweb.pdf

Nevada

Nevada Department of Education, Office of Assessment, Program Accountability, and Curriculum (2004).  2004-2005 Guidelines for the Nevada Proficiency Examination Program. Carson City, NV.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.doe.nv.gov/sca/testing/appendices.pdf

 

 

 

Nevada Department of Education, Office of Special Education, Elementary, and Secondary Education and School Improvement Programs (no date).  The Skills and Competencies Alternate Assessment of Nevada (SCAAN).  Carson City, NV.  Retrieved 12-14-04 from http://www.doe.nv.gov/testing_docs/SCAAN.pdf

 

 

 

Nevada Department of Education (no date).  IEP, LEP, and Section 504 Accommodations Forms.  Carson City, NV.

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Department of Education (2005). NHEIAP - Alternate Assessment: Deciding Who Should Participate.  Concord, NH.

 

 

 

New Hampshire Department of Education (2004).  Procedures for Determining How Students Will Participate in the Grade 10 Statewide Assessment of the New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program.  Concord, NH.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/curriculum/Assessment/2005/ProceduresforDetermining2005_Final.doc

 

 

 

New Hampshire Department of Education (no date).  New England Common Assessment Program - Accommodations, Guidelines, and Procedures: Administrator Training Guide.  Concord, NH.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.ed.state.nh.us/education/doe/organization/curriculum/NECAP/NECAP.htm

New Jersey

New Jersey Department of Education (June 2003). Students with Disabilities and the New Jersey Statewide Assessment System. Trenton, NJ.  Retrieved 12-20-04 from http://www.state.nj.us/njded/specialed/sas_brochure.htm

 

 

 

New Jersey Department of Education (no date).  Accommodations and Modifications of Test Administration Procedures for Statewide Assessments. Trenton, NJ.  Retrieved 12-20-04 from http://www.nj.gov/njded/specialed/accom900.htm

New Mexico

New Mexico Public Education Department (December 2003).  Participation of Students with Disabilities in the New Mexico Statewide Assessment Program. Santa Fe, NM.  Retrieved 12-20-04 from http://www.ped.state.nm.us/div/acc.assess/assess/index.html

 

 

 

New Mexico Public Education Department (January 2005).  Procedures Manual for The New Mexico Standards Based Assessment Program.  Santa Fe, NM.

New York

The University of the State of New York-The State Education Department (August 2004).  Test Access and Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Albany, NY.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/policy/testaccess/guide.htm

 

 

 

The University of the State of New York-The State Education Department (March 2001).  The State Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities.  Albany, NY.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/publications/policy/alterassess.htm

North Carolina

North Carolina State Board of Education, Department of Public Instruction (February 2003).  Testing Students with Disabilities, North Carolina Testing Program. Raleigh, NC.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/alternate/disabilities/testingstudents.pdf

 

 

 

North Carolina State Board of Education, Department of Public Instruction (September 2004).  Guidelines for Making Decisions for the Participation of Students with Disabilities in the North Carolina Testing Program. Raleigh, NC.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/alternate/Participation&SigCogDis.pdf

North Dakota

North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, Office of Special Education (2004).  North Dakota Alternate Assessment (NDALT) Part I. Bismarck, ND.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/resource/alternate/manualI.pdf

 

 

 

North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (September 2004). Students with Disabilities and the North Dakota State and District-Wide Assessments, Information for Parents and Educators. Bismarck, ND.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/resource/alternate/brochure.pdf

 

 

 

North Dakota Department of Public Instruction-Office of Special Education (August 1999).  Guidelines: Individualized Education Program Planning Process. Bismarck, ND.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/guide/iep/IEPb.pdf

 

 

 

North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (Fall 2004).  North Dakota State Assessment Program Test Coordinator's Manual.  Bismarck, ND.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/testing/assess/fall04.pdf

 

 

 

North Dakota Department of Public Instruction (September 2004).  Step 10 Document.  Bismarck, ND.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/testing/assess/step10.pdf

Ohio

Ohio Department of Education, Offices of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment (2004). Ohio State-wide Testing Program Rules Book. Columbus, OH.  Retrieved 12-21-04 from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/Rules/Rules_Book2004.pdf

 

 

 

Ohio Department of Education (2005).  Ohio Achievement Tests-School Test Coordinator's Manual. Columbus, OH.

 

 

 

Ohio Department of Education (July 2004). Guidelines for Participation in State-developed Alternate Assessment. Columbus, OH.  Retrieved 12-21-04 from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/alternate_assessment/AA_Participation_Guidelines_2004.asp

 

 

 

Ohio Department of Education (May 2002).  Rule 3301-13-03. Columbus, OH.  Retrieved 12-21-04 from http://www.ode.state.oh.us/proficiency/PDF/3301-13-03Rule.pdf

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State Department of Education-Office of Accountability and Assessments (2004).  Special Education and Alternate Testing (power point).  Oklahoma City, OK.  Retrieved 12-21-04 from http://www.sde.state.ok.us/home/defaultie/html

 

 

 

Oklahoma State Department of Education (October 2003).  Accommodations for Students on an IEP or 504 Plan. Oklahoma City, OK.

Oregon

Oregon Department of Education-Office of Assessment and Information Services (2004).  2004-2005 Knowledge and Skills Test Administration Manual. Salem, OR. Retrieved 12-21-04 from http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/testing/manuals/2005/ksadminmanual0405_01122005.pdf

 

 

 

Oregon Department of Education (August 2004).  2004-2005 Accommodations Table.  Salem, OR.  Retrieved 12-21-04 from http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/testing/manuals/tables

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Department of Education (February 2004). Accommodations Guidelines for Students with IEPs, Students with 504 Plans, and English Language Learners. Harrisburg, PA.  Retrieved 12-21-04 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/2005AccommodationsGuidelines.doc

 

 

 

Pennsylvania Department of Education (no date). Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in the Statewide Assessment Program. Harrisburg, PA.  Retrieved 12-21-04 from ftp://ftp.pattan.k12.pa.us/pattan/Instruction/Assessment.pdf

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2000). Policy on Student Participation and Assessment Accommodations. Providence, RI.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.ridoe.net/standards/stateassessment/policy.pdf

 

 

 

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (no date).  Alternate Assessment Criteria.  Providence, RI.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.ridoe.net/standards/stateassessment/Alternateassessment.htm

 

 

 

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (no date).  New England Common Assessment Program - Accommodations, Guidelines, and Procedures: Administrator Training Guide.  Providence, RI.

 

 

 

Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2005).  The Rhode Island State Assessment Program - District and School Testing Coordinator's Handbook Spring 2005.  Providence, RI.

South Carolina

South Carolina Department of Education, Office of Assessment (January 2003). Testing Students with Disabilities, Guidelines for IEP Teams. Columbia, SC. Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.myscschools.com/offices/assessment//Programs/SWD/IEPGuidelines021303.doc

 

 

 

South Carolina Department of Education (Spring 2004). PACT Test Administration Manual, Guidelines for Testing Students with Documented Disabilities (Appendix C, Section I). Columbia, SC.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.myscschools.com/offices/assessment/Programs/AMC/PACT-C.pdf

 

 

 

South Carolina Department of Education (2004). HSAP Test Administration Manual, Testing Students with Documented Disabilities (Appendix C). Columbia, SC.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.myscschools.com/offices/assessment/Programs/AMC/HSAPAppendixC080604.pdf

South Dakota

South Dakota Department of Education-Special Education Programs (March 2004). South Dakota Assessment System: How to Include Students with Disabilities. Pierre, SD.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.state.sd.us/deca/Special/forms/index.htm

 

 

 

South Dakota Department of Education (no date).  Frequently Asked Questions on Assessment Accommodations. Pierre, SD.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://www.state.sd.us/deca/Special/news/docs/FAQonAssessment.pdf

 

 

 

Harcourt Assessment, Inc. (2005). Tab 4-Students with Disabilities.  Retrieved 1-3-05 from http://doe.sd.gov/octa/assessment/handbook/index.asp

 

 

 

Harcourt Assessment, Inc. (2005). Tab 5-Limited English Proficient Students.  Retrieved from 1-3-05 http://doe.sd.gov/octa/assessment/handbook/index.asp

Tennessee

Tennessee Department of Education (June 2004).  2004-2005 TCAP Accommodations Appendix. Nashville, TN.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.state.tn.us/education/speced/seaccadd.pdf

 

 

 

Tennessee Department of Education (June 2004).  2004-2005 TCAP Accommodations Instructions for Students with Disabilities.  Nashville, TN.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.state.tn.us/education/speced/seiepaci04.pdf

 

 

 

Tennessee Department of Education (2004).  2004-2005 TCAP Alternate Portfolio Assessment -Teacher's Manual.  Nashville, TN.

 

 

 

Tennessee Department of Education (no date).  Testing Students Receiving Special Education Services - Questions and Answers.  Nashville, TN.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.state.tn.us/education/tsspedstass.htm

Texas

Texas Education Agency (March 2004).  Student Assessment Division Technical Digest 2002-2003-Chapter 7: Test Administration. Austin, TX.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/techdig/chap7.pdf

 

 

 

Texas Education Agency (October 2004).  ARD Committee Decision-Making Process for the Texas Assessment Program-Reference Manual.  Austin, TX.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/admin/sclaa/ardtrain/ARD_manual0405.pdf

 

 

 

Texas Education Agency (2004).  State-Developed Alternative Assessment II (SDAA II) Information Brochure for 2004-2005.  Austin, TX.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/admin/sdaa/index.html

Utah

Utah State Office of Education (October 2004). Requirements for Participation of Utah Students with Special Needs in the Utah Performance Assessment System for Students (U-PASS). Salt Lake City, UT.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/eval/_AlternateAssessment/requiremSpecialNeeds(R).pdf

 

 

 

Utah State Office of Education - Special Education Services Unit (2004).  Participation of Students with Disabilities in Utah's Statewide Assessment Program 2004-2005 - Considerations for IEP Teams.  Salt Lake City, UT.  Retrieved 1-4-05 from http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/sars/data/Participation_2004.pdf

Vermont

Vermont Department of Education (Fall 2004).  New England Common Assessment Program-Principal/Test Coordinator Manual.  Montpelier, VT. Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pgm_assessments/necap/coordinator_manual.pdf

 

 

 

Vermont Department of Education (October 2003).  Allowable Accommodations Grid for the State Component Standards-Based Assessments -Guidelines to Assessing Students with Special Assessment Needs School Year 2003-2004.  Montpelier, VT.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pgm_alternate/options/nsre_allowable_101403.pdf

 

 

 

Vermont Department of Education (September 2004).  Participation Guidelines for Students with Special Assessment Needs.  Montpelier, VT.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pgm_alternate/options/participation_guidelines_092104.pdf

 

 

 

Vermont Department of Education (no date).  New England Common Assessment Program-Accommodations, Guidelines, and Procedures:  Administrator Training Guide.  Montpelier, VT.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.state.vt.us/educ/new/pdfdoc/pgm_assessment/necap/accommodations_guide.pdf

Virginia

Virginia Department of Education (October 2002). Procedures for Participation of Students with Disabilities in the Assessment Component of Virginia’s Accountability System.  Richmond, VA. Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/SWDparticipation.pdf

Washington

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (October 2004). Guidelines for Participation and Testing Accommodations for Special Populations in State Assessment Programs. Olympia, WA. Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/pubdocs/Guidelines_for_Testing_Accommodations.pdf

 

 

 

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (January 2005).  How to Choose and Use Accommodations for Students with Disabilities for Instruction and Assessment - Trainer's Notes.  Olympia, WA.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/pubdocs/How_to_choose_manual.pdf

West Virginia

West Virginia Department of Education (July 2003).  Student with Disabilities: Guidelines for Participation in the West Virginia Measures of Academic Progress.  Charleston, WV.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.wvde.state.wv.us/ose/ParticipationGuidelinesAug2003.pdf

 

 

 

West Virginia Department of Education (January 2005).  IEP Addendum Accommodations - Participation in Statewide Assessment.  Charleston, WV.  Retrieved 1-10-05 from http://www.wvde.state.wv.us/ose/IEPAddAccommodationInstructJan05.doc

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (May 2002).  Wisconsin Alternate Assessment Participation Checklist. Madison, WI.  Retrieved 1-12-05 from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/doc/bul02-03at1.doc

 

 

 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (no date).  Examples of Test Accommodations for Students with Disabilities.  Madison, WI.  Retrieved 1-12-05 from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/oea/accomdis.html

 

 

 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (June 2002).  DPI Guidelines to Facilitate the Participation of Students with Special Needs in State Assessments.  Madison, WI.  Retrieved 1-12-05 from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/oea/specneed.html

 

 

 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (January 1999).  Assessing All Students:  What Every Parent of a Student with a Disability Needs to Know About Participation in Assessment Programs and Testing Accommodations.  Retrieved 1-12-05 from http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/dlsea/een/doc/assmt_prnt.doc

Wyoming

Wyoming Department of Education (March 2004).  The Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System (WyCAS) Test Coordinator's Manual.  Cheyenne, WY.  Retrieved 1-12-05 from http://www.k12.wy.us/wycas/archive/TestAdmin/TestCoordManual2004.pdf

 

 

 

Wyoming Department of Education (January 2005).  Policies for the Participation of All Students in District and Statewide Assessment and Accountability Systems.  Cheyenne, WY. Retrieved 1-12-05 from http://www.k12.wy.us/WyCAS/allstudent_participation.pdf

 


Appendix B. Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State

 Table B.1: Additional Testing Options

State

Selective Participation

Combination Participation

Out-of-Level Assessments

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations

Locally Selected Assessments

Alabama

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska

 

X*

 

X*

 

Arizona

 

 

 

X*

 

Arkansas

 

 

 

 

 

California

 

 

X*

X*

 

Colorado

 

X*

 

 

 

Connecticut

X*

 

X*

 

 

Delaware

X*

X*

 

X*

 

Florida

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia

 

 

 

X*

 

Hawaii

 

 

 

 

 

Idaho

 

X*

 

 

 

Illinois

 

X*

 

 

 

Indiana

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa

 

X*

 

 

 

Kansas

 

X*

 

X*

 

Kentucky

 

 

 

X*

 

Louisiana

 

 

 

 

 

Maine

 

 

 

X*

 

Maryland

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts

X*

 

 

X*

 

Michigan

 

X*

 

X*

 

Minnesota

 

X*

 

X*

 

Mississippi

 

 

X*

 

 

Missouri

 

X*

 

 

 

Montana

 

X*

 

X*

 

Nebraska

 

P*

X*

X*

 

Nevada

 

 

 

X*

 

New Hampshire

X*

 

 

X*

 

New Jersey

 

X*

 

X*

 

New Mexico

 

 

 

 

 

New York

 

 

 

 

X*

North Carolina

 

X*

 

X*

 

North Dakota

 

X*

 

 

 

Ohio

 

P*

 

 

 

Oklahoma

 

 

X*

 

 

Oregon

 

X*

X*

X*

 

Pennsylvania

 

 

 

 

 

Rhode Island

 

 

 

 

 

South Carolina

 

X*

X*

X*

 

South Dakota

 

 

 

X*

 

Tennessee

 

 

 

 

 

Texas

 

X*

 

 

X*

Utah

X*

 

 

X*

 

Vermont

 

 

X*

X*

 

Virginia

X*

 

 

X*

 

Washington

 

X*

 

 

 

West Virginia

 

 

 

 

 

Wisconsin

 

X*

 

 

 

Wyoming

 

 

 

 

 

Total (X)

6

19

8

23

2

Note. P: Prohibited. See subsequent table(s) for detailed descriptions for the starred (*) items.

 

Table B.2: Descriptions of Additional Testing Options

State

 

Alaska

Combination Participation - An eligible disabled student may meet state requirements for passing the HSGQE using any combination of testing under standard conditions, testing with the use of accommodations, or passing an approved alternative assessment program; If a student with a disability is not proficient on one or more subtests of the HSGQE, the student is eligible for an alternative assessment program in the subtest(s) in which proficiency was not achieved.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Modified assessment on the High School Graduation Qualifying Examination (HSGQE).

Arizona

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards High School (AIMS HS), AIMS Dual Purpose Assessment (AIMS DPA), and TerraNova with non-standard accommodations.

California

Out-of-Level Assessments - Out-of-level testing only allowed in STAR Program (grades 5-11 only).

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) Program and California English Language Development Test (CELDT) with modifications.

Colorado

Combination Participation - Participation by content area is allowed; When two or more content areas are being assessed, such as reading, writing, and math, the student may take the general math CSAP and the reading and writing CSAPA.

Connecticut

Selective Participation - The Planning and Placement Team (PPT) may determine that a child will not participate in a particular state or district wide assessment of student achievement or part of such an assessment.

 

Out-of-Level Assessments - Students may be tested on some subtests on grade level and other subtests on a lower level; Students may take subtests on several different lower grade levels; Out-of-level testing allowed on Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT).

Delaware

Selective Participation - Students who are dually eligible as disabled and LEP may be exempted from all or part of the DSTP-2 and from the DSTP-1 science and social studies tests if criteria is met.

 

Combination Participation - Students may take different content areas for different assessments (e.g. they may take the alternate assessment for English Language Arts and the general assessment for mathematics, science, and social studies).

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Accommodations that change the test construct(s) of the test (e.g. reading or signing passages or texts for the reading test) may be used with implications for scoring.

Georgia

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Non-standard accommodations are permitted based on documented student need.

Idaho

Combination Participation - The student may take relevant portions of the statewide general education assessment as well as any appropriate Idaho Alternate Assessments.

Illinois

Combination Participation - Students may participate in the regular state assessment (ISAT) for some subjects and in the IAA for others.

Iowa

Combination Participation - In some instances, it may be decided that a student should participate in general assessment in one content area but alternate in the other.

Kansas

Combination Participation - A student may participate in any combination of the State assessments with the exception of the State Alternate Assessment; Students who are eligible for the Kansas Alternate Assessment do not participate in any other Kansas assessments.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Modified mathematics, reading, science, and social studies assessments.

Kentucky

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Some students qualify to participate with accommodations or modifications or both.

Maine

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Maine Education Assessment (MEA) with modifications.

Massachusetts

Selective Participation - LEP students in their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools have the option, but are not required to participate in Reading and English Language Arts tests for their grades.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) with non-standard accommodations.

Michigan

Combination Participation - A student can take one general assessment and one of the MI-Access Functional Independence assessments in the content areas of ELA and mathematics.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Michigan Educational Assessment System (MEAS) assessments with non-standard accommodations.

Minnesota

Combination Participation - Eligible students may take the alternate assessment in some areas and the regular assessment in others.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Basic Skills Test (BST) with modifications.

Mississippi

Out-of-Level Assessments - Instructional level assessments are available.

Missouri

Combination Participation - A student with disabilities should participate in all MAP (Missouri Assessment Program) subject area assessments that are instructionally relevant for that student; Decisions must be made independently for each subject area.

Montana

Combination Participation - For the Iowa Tests, the alternate assessment may be applied in any combination of subjects for a student; For the CRT, which is designed for students with significant cognitive delays, the alternate assessment must be administered in both subjects.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - The Iowa Tests and Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT) with nonstandard accommodations.

Nebraska

Combination Participation - The SPED Alternate Assessment is only for those students with most significant cognitive disabilities; If the student is able to participate in the general assessment in some manner, any portion of the SPED Alternate Assessment is more likely not appropriate for that student. (Prohibited)

 

Out-of-Level Assessments - Out-of-level testing is allowed on STARS but not on the state-wide writing assessment.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - General Assessment with modifications is allowed; Modifications directly or indirectly alter the curriculum and/or the assessment itself and do change the expectations of the assessment.

Nevada

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - The IEP committee may decide that a student with a disability will participate in the state assessment program in the following way: Under non-standard conditions, using testing modifications which change or alter the content or administration of the assessment and invalidate the test result.

New Hampshire

Selective Participation - A student may be unable to participate in part of an assessment due to a significant and documented medical emergency.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Testing with non-comparable accommodations (i.e. those that do not preserve the validity and comparability of assessment results) is allowed.

New Jersey

Combination Participation - Students with disabilities shall participate in the Alternate Proficiency Assessment in each content area where the nature of the student's disability is so severe that the student is not receiving instruction in any of the knowledge and skills measured by the general statewide assessment and the student cannot a complete any of the types of questions on the assessment in the content area(s) even with accommodations and modifications.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Students with disabilities eligible for special education and related services and those students eligible under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act may have accommodations and/or modifications during the administration of the statewide assessments.

New York

Locally Selected Assessments - This local assessment may be a locally developed test(s) or some other test(s) that measures a student's progress toward the general education curriculum standards.

North Carolina

Combination Participation - Addressing one State test at a time enables the IEP Team or Section 504 Committee to focus on individual student needs for each test; For example, the team/committee may determine that a student is to participate in the end-of-grade reading comprehension test under standard conditions (i.e., without accommodations), and the student is to participate in the alternate assessment academic inventory for mathematics.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Modifications are allowed, but may invalidate the results of the test.

North Dakota

Combination Participation - One content area (reading/language arts or math) may be assessed with the North Dakota State Assessment, and the other content area may be assessed using the North Dakota Alternate Assessment.

Ohio

Combination Participation - If the IEP team believes that the alternate assessment is appropriate, that student will participate in the alternate assessment in all subject areas; If a student can participate in any part of the general assessment, then he or she should take the entire general assessment with accommodations as needed. (Prohibited)

Oklahoma

Out-of-Level Assessments - Out-of-Level Assessments.

Oregon

Combination Participation - In some cases, a student may take the regular mathematics assessment and the extended reading and extended writing assessments.

 

Out-of-Level Assessments - A challenge to another grade level assessment refers to the opportunity for some students to take the assessment above or below the grade level typically associated with their grade of enrollment.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - A modification is an alteration in test administration that substantially changes the level, content or performance criteria; Modifications include alterations in test presentation, or in the response format or substance.

South Carolina

Combination Participation - Off-grade-level testing must be considered separately for each content area of PACT (Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests) and documented in the IEP; An on-grade-level assessment may be appropriate in one content area such as English Language Arts or science, and an off-grade-level test may be recommended in another content area such as mathematics.

 

Out-of-Level Assessments - Off-grade-level testing must be considered separately for each content area of PACT and documented in the IEP.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Modifications that are typically used in South Carolina assessments include alternative scoring, extended writing modifications, the use of a poor speller's dictionary and/or a calculator, off-grade-level testing, and oral administration or reading and English language arts tests.

South Dakota

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Modifications invalidate a student's score and should be coded as a non-standard accommodations which will yield a below basic score.

Texas

Combination Participation - If the student is NOT receiving TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge Skills) instruction in reading and/or mathematics at any level, the student will be exempt from SDAA II (State-Developed Alternate Assessment) in that subject area; The student should take an appropriate LDAA (Locally-Determined Alternate Assessment) assigned by the ARD (admission, review, and dismissal) committee.

 

Locally Selected Assessments - If the student is NOT receiving TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge Skills) instruction in reading and/or mathematics at any level, the student will be exempt from SDAA II (State-Developed Alternate Assessment) in that subject area; The student should take an appropriate LDAA (Locally-Determined Alternate Assessment) assigned by the ARD (admission, review, and dismissal) committee.

Utah

Selective Participation - Students with disabilities may be exempted from some elements of U-PASS; Decisions to exempt a student from any statewide assessments must be made during an IEP meeting in which the consequences of those decisions are discussed.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Modifications are changes in curriculum, instruction, and/or assessment that are necessary to provide access for a student with a disability to participate, and which DO fundamentally alter or lower the standard or expectations of the curriculum, course, or assessment.

Vermont

Out-of-Level Assessments - On the NSREs, the adapted assessment option is based on out-of-level administrations of the general statewide assessments.

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Students who cannot participate in the general assessment because the specific accommodations they need are either unavailable or not allowed may qualify for a modified assessment.

Virginia

Selective Participation - Students with a 504 plan must participate in the Standards of Learning assessment in at least one of the four content areas at grades 3, 5, and 8; Students with an IEP must participate in the Standards of Learning assessment in at least one of the four content areas at grades 3, 5, and 8 or in the Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP).

 

Testing with modifications or non-standard accommodations - Participation with non-standard accommodations (accommodations that significantly change what a test is measuring and do not maintain standard conditions of the test are referred to as non-standard) is allowed.

Washington

Combination Participation - A student may take the standard WASL test with our without accommodations in certain subjects, but may require alternate assessment in other subjects.

Wisconsin

Combination Participation - Students may need accommodations for some content domains covered by regular assessments and alternate assessment for one or more content domains.

 

Table B.3: Circumstances in Which Students Are Not Included in any Form of Statewide Assessment

State

Exclusion Prohibited

Parent Exemption

Emotional Distress

Medical Condition/
Illness

Student Refusal

Disruptive Behavior

Absence

Other

Alabama

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alaska

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

Arizona

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arkansas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

California

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

Colorado

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connecticut

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X*

Delaware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

Florida

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Georgia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

Hawaii

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X*

Idaho

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illinois

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indiana

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iowa

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kansas

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kentucky

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

 

Louisiana

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maine

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

Massachusetts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

Michigan

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minnesota

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mississippi

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

X*

Montana

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

Nebraska

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevada

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Hampshire

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

New Jersey

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New Mexico

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

North Dakota

 

X

 

X

 

 

X

X*

Ohio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

Oklahoma

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X*

Rhode Island

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

South Carolina

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

South Dakota

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tennessee

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Texas

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utah

 

 

X

X

 

 

 

X*

Vermont

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

X*

Virginia

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

West Virginia

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wisconsin

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wyoming

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

Total (X)

30

3

3

11

0

0

2

14

Note. See subsequent table(s) for detailed descriptions for the starred (*) items.

 

Table B.4: Specifications and Descriptions of "Other" Circumstances in Which Students Are Not Included in any Form of Statewide Assessment

State

 

Alaska

A student who has arrived late to the system or experienced a sudden and traumatic event close in time to the his or her final test may be eligible for a wavier from the HSGQE requirement.

Arkansas

A student may be exempt from assessment if all of the following criteria are met: her/his demonstrated cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior in the home, school, and community environments are significantly below age expectations even with program modifications and adaptations, her/his course of study is primarily functional and life-skills oriented, and she/he requires extensive direct instruction and/or extensive supports in multiple settings to acquire, maintain, and generalize skills necessary for application in school, work, home, and community environments.

Connecticut

Students may be exempted from participation in the CMT/CAPT if they have been enrolled in school for 10 school months or less, or have been enrolled in school for more than 10 school months and less than 20 school months and score below the level established by the State Board of Education on the linguistic portion of the designated English mastery standard assessment; Special education students enrolled in approved private out-of-state special education facilities are not required to be tested.

Delaware

Students with disabilities, if they are also LEP, may be exempted one-time only from participation in some tests (DSTP-1 science and social studies tests and parts of all of the DSTP-2).

Georgia

Students who have no means of written communication sufficient to complete the GHSWT due to a severe physical disability may apply for a waiver of the GHSWT graduation requirement.

Hawaii

If a student becomes upset or cries for any reason other than being unable to read and comprehend any session of the on-grade level assessment, he/she should be removed from the testing room so that his/her behavior will not disrupt/distract other students.

Massachusetts

LEP students in their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools have the option, but are not required, to participate in Reading and English Language Arts tests for their grade; They are required to participate in Mathematics and Science and Technology/Engineering Tests for their grade.

Missouri

Physician recommendation.

Montana

On the CRT, home-schooled students, students enrolled in a private non-accredited school, and students enrolled part-time (less than 180 hours) taking a mathematics or reading course may or may not participate in testing, however, if they participate, their scores are excluded from the calculation of averages.

North Dakota

Physician recommendation; Foreign exchange student.

Ohio

Students can be exempted if they are completing a curriculum in a particular subject area that is modified substantially by the IEP from the general curriculum.

Pennsylvania

The only students with disabilities who are exempted from participation in general State and district-wide assessment programs are students with disabilities convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons.

Utah

Students may be excused from participating in statewide assessments in the event of an emergency or if the student is suffering from extreme distress, such as medical or psychological crisis; Students may be exempted from the norm-referenced assessment program if they have significant cognitive disabilities or their instructional level is three years or more below their enrolled grade level.

Vermont

Exemptions are limited to: students who are experiencing a family emergency or student crisis, students who enroll in the school after the testing window, and students who are expelled or suspended for the entire test administration window.

 

Table B.5: Participation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Make Decisions About How Students With Disabilities Will Participate in Statewide Assessment

State

IEP Deter-mined

Nature or Category of Disa-bility

Instruc-tional Rele-vance/
Instruc-tion Goals

Past Perfor-mance

Non-pursuit
of a Standard Diploma

Degree of Adap-tations Needed

Content/
Purpose/
Nature of Assess-ment

Current Perfor-mance/
Level of Func-tioning

Level of Indepen-dence

Student Needs and Charac-teristics

Other

Alabama

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

Alaska

X

 

X

X

X

 

 

X*

X*

X

 

Arizona

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

X*

X*

X

 

Arkansas

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

X*

 

X

 

California

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

X*

 

 

 

Colorado

X

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

X

 

Connecticut

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X*

X

 

Delaware

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

X*

X*

X

 

Florida

X

 

X

X

 

 

 

X*

 

X

 

Georgia

X

 

X

 

X

 

X

X*

 

 

 

Hawaii

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

 

 

 

Idaho

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

X*

 

 

Illinois

X

 

X

 

 

X*

X

X*

X*

 

 

Indiana

X

X

X

 

 

 

X

X*

 

 

 

Iowa

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X

 

Kansas

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

X*

X*

X

X*

Kentucky

X

X

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Louisiana

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

X*

X*

X

 

Maine

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

 

X*

X

 

Massachusetts

X

X

X

 

 

X*

 

 

X*

X

X*

Michigan

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

X*

X*

 

 

Minnesota

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

X*

 

 

 

Mississippi

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

X*

 

X

 

Missouri

X

 

X

 

 

 

X

 

 

 

 

Montana

X

 

 

 

 

 

X

X*

X*

X

 

Nebraska

X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nevada

X

 

X

 

 

 

 

X*

 

 

 

New Hampshire

X