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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

^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

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.

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.

^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

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.

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.

^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

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.

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.

^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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 B. Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State

 Table B.1: Additional Testing Options