Synthesis Report 66

Allowed for all domains [explicit or inferred]

Allowed for one or more domains but not all

Allowed only if IEP says it is necessary

Allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation

Not available at this time

Prohibited for one or more domains

Extended Time [IL, SE]¹

With Breaks [IL, SE]

Multiple Sessions [IL, SE]

Time Beneficial to Student [IL, SE]

Over Multiple Days [SE]

English Language Learners with Disabilities in State English Language Proficiency Assessments: A Review of State Accommodation Policies

Synthesis Report 66

Deb Albus and Martha Thurlow

December 2007

Albus, D. A., & Thurlow, M. L. (2007). English language learners with disabilities in state English language proficiency assessments: A review of state accommodation policies (Synthesis Report 66). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Overview

Process Used to Review Policies

Organization of this Report

Section 1: Participation Policies

Section 2: Accommodation Policies

Types of Accommodations and Impact of Use

Discussion

References

Appendix A: State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation and
Accommodations Policies

Appendix B: Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State

Executive Summary

English Language Learners (ELLs) with disabilities are required to participate in all state and district assessments in which their peers without disabilities participate. This includes assessments used for No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Title I accountability purposes for demonstrating proficiency in academic content, assessments used for Title III purposes to measure yearly growth in English proficiency (in reading, writing, speaking, and listening), and other state and local assessments administered to all students.

This report documents states’ participation and accommodations policies for ELLs with disabilities on their English Language Proficiency (ELP) assessments. The states’ online policies from Spring 2006, after state verification, showed that 31 states addressed accommodations for ELLs with disabilities. Of these 31 states, 13 states allowed the exclusion of a student based on his or her disability characteristics for one or more domains of the ELP assessment. Most often, ELLs who were deaf/hard of hearing or who had visual impairments or blindness were allowed to be excluded. Ten states allowed exclusion based on severity of disability. For participation, three states allowed partial or full exclusion for students needing to participate in an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards.

Specific accommodation policies varied across states, reflecting states’ attempts to balance the goals of Title III law. The accommodation most often addressed was proctor/scribe (N = 26). The accommodation most states allowed was repeat, reread, and clarify directions (N = 20). The most often prohibited accommodation was spellchecker/assistance/dictionary use (N = 17).

The summary of findings suggests a number of promising practices and issues to be addressed. Continued attention to the participation and performance of ELLs with disabilities in ELP and other state assessments is essential.

Overview

Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires the participation of all English language learners (ELLs) in annual state assessments of English language proficiency across the domains of Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening with the addition of a comprehension score typically suggested as the combination of reading and listening scores. This participation mandate includes ELLs with a broad range of disabilities, raising important issues in how and whether these students are being included in state English language proficiency (ELP) assessments. The purpose of this report is to document state participation and accommodation policies for ELP assessments, with particular attention to the full spectrum of ELLs with both low and high incidence disabilities, in order to better understand how states are addressing their inclusion in these assessments, to identify promising practices, and to address challenges for the field. In preparation, we first describe who the ELLs are and what percentage of them are estimated to fall within the various disability groups, second explain what needs to be assessed in ELP assessments per NCLB requirements, and third provide a background on similar accommodation policy studies for students with disabilities and ELLs for regular content assessments in order to frame our current research questions.

Description of All ELLs

There were approximately 4 million ELLs in K-12 public schools in the United States in 2001–2002, as estimated by Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Stephenson, Pendzick, and Sapru (2003). Of these, an estimated 9.2% were receiving special education services. Although there are issues surrounding the identification of disabilities in the general student population (e.g., disproportionality, identifying a primary vs. secondary disability), the data are some of the only available that reflect a national study of the population of students who are ELLs with disabilities.

Percent of ELLs Across Disability Categories

Among all students in special education within the United States and District of Columbia, the percentage of students within specific disability categories varies from less than 1% of the total to almost half of the total (e.g., specific learning disabilities, see Figure 1). The three highest incidence disability categories across students in the U.S. based on 2002-03 data are specific learning disabilities (48%), those who have speech or language impairments (19%), and those who have mental retardation (10%). The lowest incidence categories each have 1% or less. These are orthopedic impairments, hearing impairments, and developmental delay. It is generally assumed that similar percentages of ELLs should populate the disability categories. However, because data on ELLs within specific disability categories are not yet routinely gathered across states, a national picture of these students is difficult to attain. One national descriptive study conducted by Development Associates estimated that of all English language learners in the U.S., 5.16% are ELLs with specific learning disabilities, 2.17% have speech/language impairments, and .72% have mental retardation. Estimated percentage of all English language learners in the lowest incidence categories showed .14% had orthopedic impairments, .16% had hearing impairments, and .15% had developmental delay. Note the ELL percentages are lower because the percentages cited for special education learners in Figure 1 are the percentages of students within special education that fall in those categories as opposed to the percentage of all ELLs who fell into these categories.

Figure 1. General Percentages of All Students in Disability Categories

Note: Figure 1 data are based on the chart from Education Week Quality Counts 2004, Count Me In: Special Education In An Era of Standards, p. 10. Information is from an Education Week analysis of data form the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System, 2002–03.

Achievement Standards and Assessment

Nearly all students with disabilities, including those who are ELLs, participate in regular state assessments. Although they may use accommodations, they are taking the same assessment and are held to the same grade-level achievement standards as other students. A very small percentage of students with disabilities have very significant cognitive disabilities, and take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards to show their proficiency across content areas. These students comprise less than 1% of the total population of students (or about 0% of students graphed in Figure 1). Although this small percentage of students does not fall in a certain disability category (Kearns, Towles-Reeves, Kleinert, & Kleinert, 2006), most students in this group have multiple disabilities, autism, and mental retardation. To prevent the inappropriate placement of students in an assessment where students can be held to achievement standards different from grade-level achievement standards, current federal regulations limit the use of these assessments for accountability purposes to 1% of the total population. As in other categories of disability, it is expected that a very small percentage of ELLs will populate the group of students with the most significant disabilities, and will be held to alternate achievement standards.

What Federal Law Requires in ELP Assessment

Under Title III, the vast majority of ELLs held to grade level achievement standards and the very small percentage held to alternate achievement standards must all be assessed for annual growth in English language proficiency. These requirements are depicted in Figure 2. Linkage to academic achievement standards and content standards is derived from the non-regulatory guidance document on Title III, February 2003.

Figure 2. Current Standards and ELP Assessments

Note: Figure 2 is slightly modified from one in a presentation by Deb Albus to the LEP SCASS, June 2006.

Background from Similar Policy Studies

Previous studies conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes have examined state participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities in large-scale achievement tests (Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2005; Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, Eisenbraun, & Kato, 2006; Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Robey, 2002) and English language learners (Abedi, 2006; Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, 2005; National Research Council, 2004; Rivera & Collum, 2006). Although no prior studies focused on ELLs with disabilities specifically, there were previous mentions of them. For example, a comparison of the two most recent studies looking at policies for 2003 and 2005, Clapper et al., and Lazarus et al. respectively, shows that the number of states that inferred ELLs with disabilities as a separate group grew from 11 to 24 states (e.g., inferred meaning a state policy provides accommodations for students who are both ELL/LEP and have an IEP, because ELL/LEP accommodations are mentioned within the sections of the document related to students with disabilities), though the number that specifically included them as a separate category in 2003 (N=2) decreased to 1 state in 2005.

However, unlike other accommodation reports that have focused on academic content area assessments, this report focuses on ELP assessments, which measure academic English language proficiency in the communication mode in which the language is delivered and received (e.g., speaking, listening). Therefore, it is important to consider ELLs who may have a variety of characteristics such as being blind, deaf or hard of hearing, have difficulty speaking, or who have significant cognitive disabilities. These characteristics pose particular challenges and opportunities for states as they determine valid and fair participation and accommodation guidelines for ELLs taking ELP assessments.

Questions guiding this study were:

1. How many states have participation or accommodation guidelines for ELLs with disabilities for their ELP assessments?

2. What criteria are states recommending for participation and accommodation decisions for ELP assessments?

3. What accommodations are allowed or prohibited for ELP assessments?

Process Used to Review Policies

State information on accommodations was collected from state department of education Web sites between April 6, 2006 through May 3, 2006. General accommodation policy documents and, where available, those specifically for ELP assessments were collected. Because the focus of this report was on ELP assessments only, documents that did not have information specific to a state ELP assessment were removed from our analysis unless a state provided additional information concerning which accommodations in its general manual were being allowed for its ELP assessment. Following the gathering of online documents, verification e-mails were sent out to each state requesting a check that the current ELP assessment and accommodation documents found were complete and accurate. This verification process occurred between May 16, 2006 and July 21, 2006. This report includes participation information as found in the documents that addressed accommodations, unless a state offered further documentation about participation during the verification process.

The types of documents gathered for analysis span from a single Web based accommodation chart to accommodation and participation manuals specifically focusing on a state’s ELP assessment. In many states, information was found in test administrator or coordinator manuals, in general accommodation documents that included other state tests, or from other sources such as online letters, frequently asked questions pages, or in PowerPoint training slides. See Appendix A for a listing of states and the online documents included in the review.

Organization of this Report

This report is organized into two sections. The first section provides an overview of states’ participation policies, including variables that states are recommending to use in making participation decisions for ELLs in state ELP assessments as a whole. This information summarizes more detailed information provided in Appendix B Tables B-1a through B-4c.

The second section looks at decision-making variables cited in accommodations documents and states’ specific accommodation policies, focusing on how or whether students participate in specific domains of the assessments (see Appendix B Tables B-5a through B-11c). Summaries of states’ accommodation policies are organized under the following categories: presentation, equipment and material, response, scheduling/timing and setting. For those accommodations not allowed across all domains, a separate summary chart indicates whether they are not considered acceptable, have implications for scoring, or are prohibited by specific domain (i.e., reading, writing, speaking and listening). Information is also presented concerning accommodations involving another human to administer or record, including translating into a native language.

Because many of these accommodations grouped under these headings overlap with regard to whether they are typically used by ELLs, students with disabilities, or both, we have noted in the tables where accommodations are typically associated with one group or the other using the following categories. For accommodations given for a linguistic purpose, we used the categories for "Direct Linguistic Support" and "Indirect Linguistic Support" from the Center for Equity and Excellence in Education’s Web site used in previous policy studies (Rivera & Collum, 2006). Definitions of these terms are as follows:

Indirect linguistic support accommodations are designed to adjust the conditions under which ELLs take the test in order to help ELLs process language more easily, but they are not direct modifications of the language of the test. They are classified according to 2 areas in which the conditions of the test can be adjusted: test schedule and test environment (Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, 2005).

Accommodations providing direct linguistic support involve adjustments to the language of the test. Such accommodations can be provided in the student’s native language or in English. At the same time, these accommodations must preserve the validity of the test by ensuring that the construct being tested remains unaltered. In other words, linguistic accommodations are not intended to give ELLs support on how to respond to test items correctly (Center for Equity and Excellence in Education, 2005).

Examples of indirect linguistic support (IL) include having a familiar examiner, individual test administration, multiple sessions, etc. Examples of direct linguistic supports would be translating directions (native language support, NL), and reading questions aloud in English (English language support, EL). The abbreviation SE indicates accommodations typically used for students in Special Education. This key is used in the tables in the section on Types of Accommodations and Impact of Use.

Section 1: Participation Policies

As noted in the overview, participation in a state’s ELP assessment is required of all English language learners under Title III, including those with disabilities. This section focuses on current state policies that address how an ELL should participate in a state’s English language proficiency assessment. Of the 50 states and the District of Columbia in our study, 20 states had no online policy documents addressing participation or accommodations for ELLs with disabilities in ELP assessments. Thirty-one states had online documents specifically referencing ELLs with disabilities with regard to participation, participation within assessment domains, or guidelines about accommodations. Of these 31 states, 5 addressed whether certain ELLs (i.e., ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities) would participate in the state’s regular ELP test as a whole.

Participation Decision-making Criteria for Test as a Whole—Allowed

Figure 3 addresses the criteria states have referenced in their materials about circumstances when an ELL may not be included in the state ELP assessment as a whole. Among the 12 states that had information, all but two indicated that the severity of an ELL’s disability could preclude the students from participating in the assessment. Four states identified the role of an IEP team in making this determination. For two states, participation in the state ELP assessment was waived for ELLs taking a state alternate for students with significant cognitive disabilities. For more detailed information, see Appendix B, Tables B-2a and b.

Figure 3. Summary of Participation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Make Decisions About How ELLS with Disabilities Participate in Statewide ELP Assessments as a Whole

Participation Decision-making Criteria for Test as a Whole—Not Allowed

Only four states identified criteria that cannot be used in making decisions on ELL participation in ELP assessments (see Figure 4). Two states indicated disability category as an inappropriate decision variable and two other states indicated students having significant cognitive disabilities as not appropriate variables for decision making. Other factors were only cited by one state each, and were few in number. The specific states identifying each variable is provided in Table B-2 in Appendix B.

Figure 4. Summary of Participation Policy Variables That Cannot Be Used to Make Decisions About How ELLS with Disabilities Participate in Statewide ELP Assessments as a Whole

Test Domain Participation Decision-Making Criteria—Allowed

Figure 5 summarizes the decision-making criteria that states used to determine how English language learners with disabilities participate in specific domains of statewide ELP assessments (i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing). It includes any state that addressed participation of an ELL by specific domain of a state ELP assessment. We note that because the states that addressed participation as a whole overlap with those that addressed participation by domain, or whose overall policy affects participation on individual domains, those states are also included in these figures.

Among the 22 states with information on variables used to make decisions about how ELLs with disabilities participate in ELP assessments, IEP/LEP team decisions was a predominant factor (14 states), closely followed by an ELL’s specific disability (13 states). Other variables included more general reasons for non-participation such as absence, medical condition/illness, etc. Three states prohibited exclusion, two for a test in its entirety and one state that prohibited exclusion for a specific named disability. See Tables B-4a, b, and c in Appendix B for more detailed information by state and which variables they used. There was no specific mention of variables prohibited in decision making for participation in domains of an ELP assessment.

Figure 5. Summary of Participation Policy Variables Used to Make Decisions About How ELLs with Disabilities Participate in Domains of Statewide ELP Assessments

States Addressing Alternate ELP Assessment Options

Figure 6 summarizes the number of states that addressed the possibility of alternate ELP assessments. The five states that addressed alternate ELP assessments made reference to ELLs with severe or most significant cognitive disabilities in their recommendations. Three states suggested that it would be better for some ELLs with disabilities to take an alternative ELP assessment. Details of these suggestions are provided in Appendix B, Tables B-3a and b. The other two states prohibited exempting ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities from the regular state ELP assessment, and gave no other options.

All other states did not address the potential for other testing options, though a few did address the possibility that the regular ELP assessment may not be appropriate for all ELLs (N=3). States that make distinctions for participation based on the domain being assessed are addressed elsewhere under the section "Test Domain Participation Decision-Making Criteria."

Figure 6. Summary of States Offering Additional English Language Proficiency Testing Options

Section 2: Accommodation Policies

Clear accommodation policies are needed for determining how an ELL will participate in an ELP assessment. Although accommodation policies are potentially seen as separate from participation guidelines, quite a few states made decisions about participation in ELP assessments based on whether a particular accommodation was available or allowed for a specific ELP assessment or domain within an ELP assessment. For example, a state, consortium, or testing company, may have determined that braille versions of an ELP assessment were not available but not necessarily prohibited. Thus some ELLs who require a braille administration of the same assessment may be able to participate in one state but not in another depending on availability. This is just one example of the interplay observed between available accommodations and participation.

This section covers decision-making criteria, guidelines for the administration of accommodations involving another human to administer or record, and summaries of accommodations by type (e.g., presentation, response) and by whether they are allowed with or without implications for scoring, requirements for use, or are prohibited.

Accommodation Decision-making Criteria That Are Allowed

Of the 26 states with information on variables allowed for decision making about accommodations, the highest cited variable was IEP, 504, or ELP team decision (N=25). The second most cited variable was maintaining the validity of a test and resulting scores (N=23). The third category, aside from "other" was considering individual students’ needs (N= 21). Some examples of what states cited in the "other" category include maintaining test security, availability of an accommodation, and the necessity to "bundle" accommodations (e.g., allowing a student to vocalize requires being in a separate room so as not to bother other students).

Figure 7 shows those variables that are recommended for making decisions about accommodation use on state ELP assessments for ELLs and ELLs with disabilities. Tables B-5a, b, and c in Appendix B identify the states with these and additional variables.

Figure 7. Summary of Accommodation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Guide the Decision-making Process for Using Accommodations for ELLS with Disabilities on a Statewide ELP Assessment

Guidelines for Person Providing Accommodation Assistance

Some accommodations require the assistance of another person. It is important to standardize who a scribe/proctor may be and how that person may provide assistance. For our purposes, a state was counted as providing guidelines if it provided any information regarding who could provide this assistance (e.g., has been trained) or any explanation as to how the assistance is to be provided (e.g., transcribe student responses exactly), the mechanics of how to record (e.g., what materials to use), or specifications about when the accommodation can be used (e.g., specific domain of a test), etc.

Twenty-three states provided information on scribes/proctors, readers, sign language interpreters or translators. Of these, 21 states had at least some level of specification for what was required for scribes (see Figure 8). Eleven states had guidelines for sign language interpreters and translators. We focused on those translator policies considered as standard administration (e.g., directions), so only these are reflected in the chart. Although translating directions was an allowed accommodation within the World-class Instructional Design and Assessment WIDA) consortium, one of the states in that consortium that verified information for us said that it followed all accommodation policies of the consortium except this one. The WIDA consortium was originally established through a federal grant among 14 partner states to develop an English language proficiency assessment linked to state standards to fulfill Title III requirements for annually assessing reading, listening, speaking, writing, and comprehension. See Appendix B, Table B-6 for notes on specific state guidelines.

Figure 8. Summary of Guidelines for the Administration of Accommodations Involving Another Human to Administer or Record

*Translation count includes only the states that considered it standard administration (e.g., directions).

Types of Accommodations and Impact of Use

An analysis of what accommodations were allowed was conducted by different categories of accommodations: Presentation, Equipment and Materials, Response, Scheduling/Timing, and Setting. Designations were assigned to accommodations using this schema: (1) Allowed for all domains—if there is explicit language saying the accommodation is standard or there is no language indicating the contrary, (2) Allowed for one or more domains but not all, (3) Allowed only if IEP says it is necessary—IEP documentation required, (4) Allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation—state indicates using it results in a non-standard administration even though no language may overtly address scoring, (5) Not available at this time, and (6) Prohibited—the use of the accommodation is not permitted in part or in the entirety of the ELP assessment.

Detailed tables in Appendix B include designations by domain (e.g., reading, writing, speaking and listening) and other notes such as a state requiring an accommodation to have been used in instruction. For this and other detailed information on accommodations in the "other" category, see Appendix B tables as referenced in the text.

The main accommodations analyzed here are a combination of those found in previous reports on special education accommodations (Clapper et al., 2005) with the addition of those that relate directly or indirectly to an ELL’s linguistic needs. We acknowledge that certain accommodations in the literature are associated with students with disabilities, with English language learners, or both, so have listed them here with notation as to the reasons given for providing them (e.g., related to disability or linguistic support). Accommodations often used in conjunction with special education needs are indicated with SE. Those used for linguistic purposes are separated into "Direct Linguistic Support" and "Indirect Linguistic Support" categories as found on the Center for Equity and Excellence in Education’s Web site and from previous studies (Rivera & Collum, 2006). Specifically, to indicate English language or native language direct linguistic support accommodations we use EL and NL respectively. Indirect linguistic support accommodations are noted with IL. We note that some states’ policies did not list accommodations separately by group. Thus, a state allowing or prohibiting an accommodation in a table should not be interpreted as having specifically allowed or prohibited it for the designation(s) indicated (e.g., linguistic or disability related needs). Additional notes by specific states are provided in Appendix B.

Presentation Accommodations

Presentation accommodations address changes in how the test is presented to the student. Table 1 provides a summary of these accommodation policies across states. Repeat/reread/clarify directions was the accommodation with the highest number of states allowing its use across all domains (N=20). Next were large print (N=17) and sign interpreting the directions (N=13), also across all domains.

For presentation accommodations, those showing the most variability across states were reading aloud questions or signing test questions with a range of 4 to 8 states allowing these for at least one domain, 2 to 3 states allowing them with scoring implications, and 2 to 7 states prohibiting them. The number of states offering braille formats was fairly mixed with 6 states allowing it for all domains, 2 states with implications for scoring, 10 not making it available at this time and 2 other states prohibiting this format. Translating directions into a student’s native language was split with 9 states that allowed it across all domains and 7 states that prohibited it for one or more domains. To see the other accommodations not charted here, see Appendix Tables B-7a, b and c.

We note there was one state that had made a blanket statement prohibiting all accommodations including those for students with disabilities, so those accommodations with only one state prohibiting an accommodation do not reflect a state that has specifically singled out that particular accommodation to be prohibited.

Table 1. Summary of Presentation Accommodations*

	Allowed for all domains [explicit or inferred]	Allowed for one or more domains but not all	Allowed only if IEP says it is necessary for one or more domains	Allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation for one or more domains	Not available at this Time	Prohibited for one or more domains
Large Print [SE]¹	17	0	1	1	2	1
Braille [SE]	6	0	2	2	10²	1
Read Aloud Directions [EL/NL, SE]	4	0	1	2	0	1
Read Aloud Questions[EL/NL, SE]	5	3³	3	4	0	2
Sign Interpret Directions [SE]	13	1	0	0	0	1
Sign Interpret Questions [SE]	2	2²	2	3	0	7
Translate Directions (native language)[NL, SE]	9⁴	0	0	0	0	7
Translate Test [NL, SE]	0	0	0	0	0	12
Repeat/ Re-read/Clarify Directions [EL/NL, SE]	20	0	1	1	0	2
Visual Cues [SE]	4	6	1	0	0	1
Administration by Others [IL, SE]	1	0	0	0	0	1
Familiar Examiner [IL, SE]	9	0	0	0	0	1
Additional Examples [IL, SE]	7	0	0	0	0	1

*In addition to the presentation accommodations listed in this table, 24 states have other presentation accommodations that are either allowed or prohibited.

^{1 Abbreviations IL, EL, NL, and
SE indicate whether an accommodation is
generally considered an indirect
linguistic support (IL), a direct
English or native language linguistic
support (EL or NL), or used in special
education (SE).
^{2 One additional state
indicated that this accommodation for
ELLs was N/A-unclear if not available or
seen as not applicable. Perhaps more
information is needed for ELLs with
IEPs.
^{3 Six additional states were
unclear about whether this accommodation
was available for writing only.
^{4 One additional state was
unclear whether this was allowed.}}}}

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.
Sign Interpret Directions = the directions portion of the assessment is presented to the student via sign language (or other version such as cued speech, signed English, etc.).
Sign Interpret Questions = the assessment items are presented to the student via sign language (or other version such as cued speech, signed English, etc.).
Translate Directions = directions are translated into student’s native language.
Translate Test = items are translated into student’s native language.
Repeat/Re-read/Clarify Directions = directions may be clarified through restatement for the student either in response to the administrators’ decision that clarification is needed for all directions, or in response to student questions.
Visual Cues = additional visual cues are provided for students, such as arrows, stickers, or stop signs, highlighting of key words or verbs, or supplementing text with pictures.
Administration by Others = someone other than regular test administrator gives test to the student (e.g., special or regular education teacher or other school personnel).
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, regular education teacher, or para-educator who has worked with student previously).
Additional Examples = in response to student request for more information or clarification, test administrator can supply additional examples to assist the student in understanding the intent of the question.

Table 2 shows the presentation accommodations only for those states that had specifically either allowed or prohibited them for certain domains, but not all. Reflecting the same variability for this accommodation as a whole across states, the read aloud questions accommodation varied the most in its acceptability across domains. It was accepted without scoring implications for three states in writing and two states in speaking. Another 2–3 states accepted it for reading and listening but with scoring implications. One state each required IEP documentation for it across each domain except speaking and it was prohibited in all but speaking for at least one state. Six states were not clear on this accommodation, whether it applied to questions or directions in the reading assessment. Sign interpreting directions and allowing visual cues were deemed acceptable by all states for the domains in which they were singled out.

Table 2. Presentation Accommodations, Allowed or Prohibited by Specified Domains*

	Reading	Writing	Listening	Speaking
Read Aloud Questions [EL/NL, SE]¹	I ,2 DI,1 P,1	A,3 D,1 P,1 U,6	I ,1 DI, 1	A,2
Sign Interpret Directions [SE]	A,1	A,1
Sign Interpret Questions [SE]	A,1 I,2	A,3 D,1 I, 1	A,1 I,1	A,1 I,1
Repeat/Re-read/Clarify Directions [EL/NL, SE]	D,1	D,1	D,1	D,1
Visual Cues [SE]	A,6	A,6	A,6

*Note: A = Allowed (no impact), I = Impacts scoring or aggregation, D = Must have documentation in IEP that disability requires the accommodation, P = Prohibited, U = Unclear. The number is the number of states.

^{1Abbreviations indicate whether
an accommodation is generally considered
an indirect linguistic support (IL), a
direct English language (EL) or native
language (NL) linguistic support, or
used in special education (SE).}

Response Accommodations

Response accommodations address changes in how a student may respond while being assessed. Table 3 shows a summary of state’s accommodation policies for this accommodation category. Accommodations receiving the most support to be used across all domains were writing in test booklets (N=10), proctor/scribe (N=9), and computer or machine (N=8). Though when adding in states that allow these accommodations for one or more domains without scoring implications, the largest number of states (N=22) support the use of a proctor/scribe for at least one domain.

In prohibiting accommodations in this category, most states mentioned accommodations that fit into the spellchecker/assistance/dictionary/grammar check type (N=17). The second and third most prohibited accommodations were states that specified bilingual dictionaries (N=14) among those addressing dictionaries, and native language responses (N=10). For further details and other accommodations not charted here, see Appendix Tables B-8a, b and c.

Table 4 shows the response accommodations for states that specifically mentioned allowing or prohibiting them in relation to a specific domain. For response accommodations, the writing domain had the only prohibitions which included proctor/scribe (N=4), tape recorder (N=6), brailler (N=6), and pointing (N=6). However, not all of the states that specifically referenced a response accommodation for writing prohibited it. In writing, the use of a computer or machine (N=7), writing in test booklets (N=6), and using a tape recorder (N=2) were the only accommodations that if allowed had no scoring implications in this domain. All other accommodations specified by states for reading and listening domains were allowed.

Some states’ policies allowed for domain shifts when accommodations were used for item presentation and response. Table 5 shows the shifts that have been allowed by at least one state on an ELP assessment in our analysis. In one state, a listening passage could be signed using ASL for students who knew ASL, or the listening scripts could be read by the student. Similarly, the speaking test could be signed or completed through the exchange of written notes.

Table 3. Summary of Response Accommodations*

	Allowed for all domains (explicitly or inferred)	Allowed for one or more domains but not all	Allowed only if IEP says it is necessary	Allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation	Not available at this time	Prohibited for one or more domains
Proctor/Scribe [SE]¹	9	4	7	2	0	5
Computer or Machine [SE]	8	7	1	2	0	2
Write in Test Booklets [SE]	10	6	0	0	0	1
Tape Recorder [SE]	2	2	1	0	0	7
Communication Device [SE]	3	0	1	0	1	1
Spellchecker/ Assistance/ Dictionary²[EL/NL, SE]	2	0	0	2	0	17
Bilingual Dictionary Specified [NL, SE]	0	0	0	0	0	14
Brailler [SE]	3	0	1	0	0	7
Sign Responses to Sign Language Interpreter [SE]	2	1	1	0	0	8
Native Language Response [NL]	0	0	0	0	0	10
Pointing [SE]	5	6	0	0	0	7

*In addition to the response accommodations listed in this table, 19 states have other response accommodations.

^{1 Abbreviations indicate
whether an accommodation is generally
considered an indirect linguistic
support (IL), a direct English or native
language linguistic support (EL, NL) or
used in special education (SE).
^{2 This category includes states
with any type of dictionary mentioned
because it is sometimes unclear whether
a state means all dictionaries, English,
bilingual or both are included. This
category also includes glosses. See
notes in appendix for further
clarification.}}

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), often with instructions about disabling spellcheckers, etc.
Write in Test Booklet = responses may be written in the test booklet rather than on answer sheets, and school personnel then transcribe to 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).
Spellchecker/Assistance/Dictionary/Grammar Check = spellchecker either as a separate device or within a word-processing program, or print materials (e.g., glossary, dictionary).
Bilingual Dictionary = Among those states that addressed dictionary use, these specified bilingual or foreign language dictionaries or similar reference materials.
Native Language Response = This includes students providing native language response and the event of someone responding to a student who has responded in his or her native language.
Brailler = device or computer that generates responses in braille.
Sign Response to Sign Language Interpreter = student signs a test response to a sign language interpreter.
Pointing = student points to response and staff member translates this onto an answer sheet.

Table 4. Response Accommodations, Allowed or Prohibited by Specified Domains*

	Reading	Writing	Listening	Speaking
Proctor/Scribe [SE]¹	A,4 D,6	D,6 I, 2 P,4	A,3 D,6
Computer or Machine [SE]	A,1	A,7	A,1	I,1
Write in Test Booklets [SE]	A,6	A,6	A,6
Tape Recorder [SE]		A,2 P,6	A,2
Brailler [SE]		P,6
Pointing [SE]	A,5	P,6	A,6

*Note: A= Allowed (no impact), I = Impacts scoring or aggregation, D = Must have documentation in IEP that disability requires the accommodation, P = Prohibited, , U = Unclear. The number is the number of states.

Mode	Changes to Presentation of Domain Content	Changes to Response Mode
Reading	Reading test to braille reading
Listening	Listening to lip reading Listening to reading script Listening to ASL
Speaking		Speaking to writing (e.g., student exchanges written notes with teacher) Speaking to communication device
Writing	Most dealt with changes in prompt delivery, not content (e.g., ASL, spoken, lip read, etc.)	Writing to speaking (with scribe) Writing to typing

Equipment and Material Accommodations

These accommodations are changes in the conditions of the assessment setting that involve the introduction of certain types of tools and assistive devices. Table 6 provides a summary of the number of states’ policies that address this type of accommodation. A range of 1 to 15 states allowed these types of accommodations for ELP assessments. The highest number of states that allowed magnification equipment and noise buffers (N=15 each) did so across all domains. Only one state prohibited all of the listed accommodations (including those for students with disabilities) on its state’s ELP assessment. To see further details and other accommodations not charted here, see Appendix Tables B-9a, b, and c.

Table 6. Summary of Equipment and Material Accommodations*

	Allowed for all domains [explicit or inferred]	Allowed for one or more domains but not all	Allowed only if IEP says it is necessary	Allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation	Not available at this time	Prohibited for one or more domains
Magnification Equipment [SE]	15	0	0	0	0	1
Amplification Equipment [SE]	13	0	0	0	0	1
Light/Acoustics [SE]	13	0	0	0	0	1
Templates/Graph Paper [SE]	3	0	0	0	0	1
Audio/Video Equipment [SE]	1	0	0	0	0	1
Noise Buffer [SE]	15	0	0	0	0	1
Adaptive/Special Furniture [SE]	11	0	0	0	0	1

*In addition to the equipment and materials accommodations listed in this table, 16 states have other equipment and materials accommodations.

Definitions:
Magnification Equipment = equipment that enlarges the print size of the test.
Amplification Equipment = equipment that increases the level of sound during the test (e.g., FM systems, hearing aids).
Light/Acoustics = changes to the amount or placement of lighting or special attention to the acoustics of the test setting.
Templates/Graph Paper = Placemarkers 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 for sitting upright, holding a writing instrument, etc.

Scheduling/Timing Accommodations

Scheduling and timing accommodations are summarized in Table 7. Many states allowed students to take breaks (N=17) or be allowed extended time (N=16). Only a handful of states prohibited testing over multiple days (N=5). No accommodation in this category was noted to have implications for scoring and/or aggregation. For further details see Appendix Tables B-10a, b, and c.

Only one accommodation, testing over multiple days, was mentioned by states in their policies either allowing or prohibiting a scheduling/timing accommodation by a specific domain. Of these states, six allowed testing over multiple days for reading, writing, and listening, and four states prohibited this accommodation for ELP speaking assessments.

Table 7. Summary of Scheduling/Timing Accommodations*

*In addition to the scheduling/timing accommodations listed in this table, 2 states have "other" scheduling/timing accommodations.

Definitions:
Extended Time = student may take longer than the time typically allowed, sometimes with the time specifically designated in some way.
With Breaks = time away from test allowed during tests typically administered without breaks, sometimes with conditions about when this can occur (e.g., not within subtests) and how long they can be.
Multiple Sessions = assessments generally given in a single session can be broken into multiple sessions.
Time Beneficial to Student = administered at a time that is most advantageous to the student, often related to a medication schedule.
Over Multiple Days = administered over several days when it is normally administered in one day.

Setting Accommodation

Setting accommodations are changes in the environment or location of a test administration. Table 8 provides the summary of states’ policies for these on ELP assessments. The highest number of states allowed individual test administration (N=19) across all domains, followed by small group administration (N=18). There was an equal number of states that allowed testing in a separate room and seat location/proximity (N=12 each).

Again, one state made a blanket statement prohibiting all accommodations for their ELP assessment. For further details see Appendix Tables B-11a, b, and c.

Table 8. Summary of Setting Accommodations*

	Allowed for all domains [explicit or inferred]	Allowed for one or more domains but not all	Allowed only if IEP says it is necessary	Allowed with implications for scoring and/or aggregation	Not available at this time	Prohibited for one or more domains
Individual [IL, SE]¹	19	0	0	0	0	1
Small Group [IL, SE]	18	0	0	0	0	1
Carrel [IL, SE]	5	6	0	0	0	1
Separate Room [IL, SE]	12	0	0	0	0	1
Seat Location/ Proximity [IL, SE]	12	0	0	0	0	1
Minimize Distractions [IL, SE]	5	0	0	0	0	1
Student’s Home	10	0	1	0	0	1
Special Education Classroom or ESL/Bilingual Classroom [IL, SE]	2	0	0	0	0	1

*In addition to the setting accommodations listed in this table, 14 states have other setting accommodations.

Definitions:
Individual = student assessed separately from other students.
Small Group = student assessed in small group separate from other students.
Carrel = student assessed while seated in a study carrel.
Separate Room = student assessed in separate room, usually involves also individual or small group accommodation.
Seat Location/Proximity = student is assessed in a specifically designated seat location, usually in close proximity to the test administrator.
Minimize Distractions/Reduced Noise = student assessed in a quiet environment where auditory distractions can be kept to a minimum.
Student’s Home = student assessed at home, usually when out of school for illness or other reasons.
Special Education Classroom = student assessed in special education classroom, usually implying also small group or individual administration.

Only one setting accommodation, use of a carrel, was separately mentioned by states in their policies as not being allowed or prohibited across certain domains (see Table 9). Six states allowed this accommodation for reading, writing, and listening only. It is understandable that given the nature of many one to one speaking assessments that this might not be a natural domain for administering in a carrel, unless perhaps it is a computerized assessment.

Table 9. Setting Accommodations, Allowed or Prohibited by Specified Domains

	Reading	Writing	Listening	Speaking
Carrel [IL, SE]¹	A,6	A,6	A,6

^{1 Abbreviations indicate
whether an accommodation is generally
considered an indirect linguistic
support (IL), a direct English or native
language linguistic support (EL, NL) or
used in special education (SE).
Note: A= Allowed (no impact), I =
Impacts scoring or aggregation, D = Must
have documentation in IEP that
disability requires the accommodation, P
= Prohibited, U = Unclear. The number is
the number of states.}

Discussion

The increasing numbers of ELLs with disabilities in schools today, along with federal requirements to measure students’ English language proficiency, makes it essential that states attend to their policies and guidelines related to assessment participation and accommodations for these students. Our goal in examining states’ guidelines for their English language proficiency assessments in 2005–2006 was to provide a first time look at how states are approaching what is often a challenging topic for them. Previous policy reviews have examined participation and accommodation guidelines for state assessments for students with disabilities (Clapper et al., 2005; Lazarus et al., 2006) and for English language learners (Rivera, Stansfield, Scialdone, & Sharkey, 2000). At least one study has examined the state of practice for English language learners with disabilities on regular state assessments (Minnema, Thurlow, VanGetson, & Jimenez, 2006). This is the first study, however, to examine and summarize guidelines for accommodations for all states on English language proficiency tests.

Policy Documents

In the state policies on English language proficiency assessments, there was a certain amount of carry-over from already established participation and accommodation policies for regular state assessments, for both students with disabilities and English language learners. However, some states’ regular accommodation manuals did not address English language learners with disabilities or did not separately address the ELP assessment for their state. Readdressing these policies is necessary because the constructs measured across regular content and ELP assessments are different and thus the appropriateness of the accommodations used may vary.

States that addressed accommodations for ELLs with disabilities on ELP assessments varied in how information was presented and some state practices seemed to be more helpful than others. One particularly helpful way to provide information so that it is easily accessible to practitioners (and researchers) was to list whether specific accommodations were allowed or not in chart form by domain of the assessment (e.g., reading, writing, listening, and speaking). This approach was used by seven states, even though practitioners using the information will most likely need additional supportive information on how to make decisions for individual students. Five states provided information by indicating only whether the accommodations were allowed or not. Two additional states presented information using language such as "not available" to be used or "not appropriate." Eventually, more states will need to address how accommodations choices affect scoring and accountability decisions. Two states gave a blanket policy statement that no accommodation could be used on its state ELP assessment, but one of these states had a chart note indicating that accommodations might be allowed for ELLs with disabilities.

Key Points

Our analysis of state policies resulted in many points for discussion. Although there is understandable overlap between issues of participation and accommodation policies, this discussion is structured to address these areas separately, pointing out promising practices and remaining areas of challenge within each. In discussing our findings, we identified several key themes for participation and accommodations followed by a section focused on future considerations for ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities:

Participation

· Students with Very Low English Language Proficiency

· ELLs with Significant Cognitive Disabilities

· Specific Disabilities and Participation

· Test Design and Participation

· Diverging State Policies

· Related Policy Issues

Accommodation

· Accommodations and Best Test Administration Practices

· Clarifying Accommodation Policies

· Novel Concepts of Accommodations

Future Considerations

Participation

Challenges in dealing with the range of student characteristics within the ELL population signal the need to address participation in a variety of ways. In this section we discuss states’ policies in administering ELP assessments to students with very low English language proficiency, participation of ELLs with the most significant cognitive disabilities, how specific disabilities and test characteristics may affect student participation, and a brief discussion about why states may struggle with balancing the purposes of the assessment based on different emphases within the requirements of federal law and guidance. Other related policy issues are addressed as well.

Students with Very Low English Language Proficiency

States handling the low language proficiency issue varied in the following ways. One state did not test the student and automatically scored him or her at the lowest possible score as a baseline. Other states implemented the ELP assessment with an incremental approach.

The two states that dealt with the participation of struggling ELLs with very minimal English language ability using the ‘incremental approach’ had similar steps. One state’s 2003 state policy said that if the administrator knew from a home language survey that the student was deaf or hard of hearing, the test developer recommended administering all but the listening portion of the test. But then those students only receive raw scores for subtests taken. A policy dated 2004–2005 directed an administrator to start by giving the speaking test. Then if a student did not respond the administrator may stop the administration and document the student’s proficiency in all domains as pre-production. Neither policy document was clear about what is done with an incomplete overall test score for accountability purposes.

A second state also recommended an ‘incremental" administration procedure, but the first subtest was not fixed in the order needing to be administered. If the student was not able to answer the first five items of the first subtest attempted, the examiner then was directed to choose another subtest in consultation with the testing coordinator or an ESL Specialist. If the student could not answer the first five items of the second subtest, testing was suggested to be discontinued and the score report would indicate a proficiency level of 1. For an ELL with a disability, the second approach appears to be a fairer one, allowing for the fact that a student may have a disability or other personal characteristics that prevents them from best showing what they know on any one domain subtest. However, it still does not account for the possibility that a student may be able to perform in a domain area or in a specific domain assessment that is not administered. In a previous study by NCEO, allowing a student with a disability to take all domains of the LAS assessment showed that if the general procedure had been followed to stop the assessment based on oral skills alone, the reading and writing skills of the student, which were on par with their ELL peers, would not have been known (Albus, Klein, Liu, & Thurlow, 2004).

ELLs with Significant Cognitive Disabilities and Participation

Because federal law asserts that all ELLs receiving Title III funds must have their English language proficiency assessed annually, this necessarily includes the very small percentage of students with significant cognitive disabilities who are held to alternate achievement standards. Because ELP assessments are to be linked or aligned to the regular grade level achievement standards across reading, math, and science, this may be an issue for states where there are ELLs held to alternate achievement standards, as a state ELP test may not link well to these standards.

Two states had or suggested an alternate ELP assessment in part or for the whole of a state’s regular ELP assessment. One of these states did not officially accept the results of the states’ own suggested alternatives, and districts were not required to send the results to the state department. A second state offered a beginning version of a state alternate for students in checklist form. Both states’ documents gave the impression that decision making for these students was a work in progress. Other states have opted to exclude these students from ELP assessments with no other state alternative.

In addition to exclusion policies, decisions about participation are also important to consider for this group based on individual characteristics. Although an ELL in the 1% group may not have the physical ability to listen, speak, read, or write, allowing flexibility to show these different skills if a student is able to do them in an ELP assessment is important. The following issues about participation decisions could be raised. If an ELL working on oral speaking is more fluent in English using a communication board, would such a student’s use of a board count equally to that of the oral performance, or would the use of vocal chords in the assessment be counted more? What consequences might the decision for assessment mode have on instruction?

Further, for annual yearly progress, each student must have a comprehension score, usually suggested as a combination of listening and reading scores. How might these overall comprehension scores be adapted to fit the diverse communication styles of these students? These issues are made more complex depending on parent decisions regarding the use of the native language in the home and in classrooms, and whether there is bilingual input used in combination with symbolic systems.

Because ELP assessments differ, it may be that a state’s assessment might be appropriate in part or in its entirety for some students taking a state alternate on alternate achievement standards. But, this, too, is unknown. Such participation decisions should be made in consultation with the IEP and ELL teams. Clearly more thinking and development needs to be done in this area in order for all ELLs to be able to demonstrate their academic English proficiency levels in a valid and reliable way.

Specific Disabilities and Participation

Other participation issues centered on how a specific disability related to the design of an ELP test. The high numbers of states considering individual student needs while striving to maintain the validity of a test and resulting scores reinforces the challenge and the opportunity for states assessing ELLs with disabilities on these and other assessments. There was wide variation among states in areas such as how a deaf or hard of hearing student might participate in a listening test. In one state, the student would not be tested. In another state, multiple options were made available though it was not always clear if there were implications for scoring for the stated options. For example, listening passages could be signed using ASL for students who knew ASL, or the listening scripts could be read by the student. Similarly with the speaking test, this could be signed or completed through the exchange of student written notes with a teacher (see Table 5). In such instances, a close analysis that draws from current research literature targeting a specific domain, such as literature on what constitutes reading (NARAP, 2006) may help inform state policies.

The state that allowed ELLs to read listening scripts and the exchange of notes for the speaking test was not clear about there being any potential implications for scoring. It may be that the state prioritized gaining an understanding of a student’s level of content language proficiency over the communication mode in which that language was expressed. But, the state did not address the range of instructional options for lip-reading, signing, or speaking and how these practices may affect accommodation decisions. If a deaf English language learner exchanges notes during a speaking and listening test because this is what is being done during instruction, it may be at the expense of learning other communication styles for interacting with the wider communities of the hearing and deaf or hard of hearing. If they participate with the exchange of notes because ASL is considered a foreign language, that is another issue. Regardless, the connection of classroom practices to how the students are assessed is relevant; this was noted by 18 of the 26 states with policy information in this area.

Test Design and Participation

Test design was another reason given for excluding students or restricting participation on one or more ELP subtests. An example of a design that might restrict participation for some ELLs with disabilities was an ELP test that incorporated abundant visual stimuli and cues into its structure. Although this design strategy might be beneficial to the majority of ELLs by aiding their comprehension, it potentially created barriers to participation for ELLs with significant visual impairments or blindness because braille versions of the assessment either were not recommended or available, and because no studies with braille versions, or substitute/adjusted items had yet been conducted. It is not clear from our study whether designers of similarly constructed ELP assessments have successfully created substitute items where needed (i.e., where the item solution relied on the visual), or whether such efforts have even been considered.

A second example of a design that might restrict participation for a small number of students was one that required speaking ability to demonstrate listening (or lip-reading ability) on an assessment. Thus, performance in one domain (i.e., listening or lip reading) was contingent on a student’s skill in another domain (i.e., speaking). Although it may seem natural to assess certain domain skills this way, states and test developers need to be sure of their reasons for requiring that they be assessed dependent on one another. Although this assessment practice may produce accurate measures of skills for most students, it may not for all.

Diverging State Policies on Participation

Although there are multiple factors involved in policy and decision making for participation and accommodations, one of the areas states may be struggling with is trying to balance two important purposes of the ELP assessments. Title III law specifies that ELP assessments measure progress in reading, writing, listening, and speaking, and official guidance also emphasizes that ELP assessments need to show what students can comprehend and produce in the English language in relation to their concurrent development in grade level academic content. These two purposes become a challenge when a student, due to a disability or other factors such as test design or accommodation policies, is not able to participate in a valid and reliable way in the ELP test in part or as a whole. Thus, if a student is able to participate in only part of an assessment due to a disability, the language level assessed is not complete and neither is the level of language ability across all the domains required.

What does a state do for those students whose disabilities do not "fit" an assessment, even with accommodations? Those states that have online policies appear to be opting to partially or fully exclude these students. Other states are choosing to be flexible with modifications to the test, even though one state cautioned that decision-makers should watch out that modifications in too many domain tests could render the scores an invalid reflection of a student’s skills. However, consistently excluding a student from a domain subtest by barring modifications or alternate formats may also result in an invalid picture of a student’s language proficiency skills. For example, if there is unequal representation of content language assessed across domains (e.g., more science language assessed in a reading domain).

Related Policy Issues

Other related policy issues include what states do with partial scores of students not able to take all domain tests and how exclusion may affect decisions linked to ELP assessment scores. Of the 13 states that allowed students to be excluded from a domain test based on a disability, none of them addressed what they ultimately will do with the "incomplete" overall ELP assessment scores. With regard to Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goal reporting, no state addressed how the exclusion of ELLs from reading or listening assessments affects the comprehension score, which in draft federal guidance is suggested to be a combination of reading and listening scores. Further, decisions about partial exclusion on ELP assessments potentially affect other state policy decisions attached to ELP test scores such as a student being able to progress to monitoring status, fully-English proficient status, or even to graduate. States should be able to address the possibility of an ELL who may be able to communicate proficiently in English in some domain skills but not others due to a disability.

Accommodations

As shown in the accommodation summaries, states varied most widely on accommodations addressing how a test is presented and how a student is allowed to respond. These are arguably the most crucial accommodation categories to address for ELP assessments, because their purpose is to measure how well a student receives and responds in English. The analysis of these and other types of accommodations across states was not a straightforward procedure. This section addresses (1) how the language used in manuals to describe accommodations affects the ability to compare practices across states, (2) how states differ in their attitudes towards allowing accommodations usually associated with ELLs or students with disabilities and why "linguistic accommodations" needs to be clarified, and (3) how states are exploring novel accommodation definitions.

Accommodations and Best Test Administration Practices

Information about accommodations is not always clear even when manuals are created specifically to address them. States vary in how and whether certain types of information are presented, and how accommodations are defined. What some states consider an accommodation, another state will describe as an optional best practice during test administration, or perhaps a prohibited practice. For example some states’ accepted test administration practices allow for posters to remain on the walls if they provide procedural information on how to write an essay, but other states do not allow this. Only accommodations labeled as such in state manuals were included in our accommodation policy analysis, unless a state’s manual explicitly equated the practices in its administration procedures to accommodations under certain conditions (e.g., were supported by IEP documentation). This may create an artificial distinction between regular administration options and accommodations, both of which are generally considered standard.

Clarifying Accommodation Policies

State policies concerning appropriate test administration continue to evolve within and across states. Although one state had a blanket statement that no accommodations, including ones for students with disabilities, would be allowed on the state ELP test, many states are noting acceptable accommodations and acknowledging that decision making concerning accommodations is a work in progress. Some states are open to the possibility of braille versions in the future but do not offer them now. Some states that have overlapping accommodations for ELLs and students with disabilities (e.g., extra time) are in the process of better clarifying what they mean when they say "All ELL accommodations" are prohibited. Others should clarify statements regarding the prohibition of all accommodations, when they actually mean to allow them for ELLs with disabilities. Further, generic language prohibiting "linguistic accommodations" needs to be clarified in some manuals so that readers know what this means specifically for the state. Some states do not note or describe linguistic accommodations as a separate category in their manuals. This may lead to problems, as across states, the accommodation of clarifying a direction, reading directions aloud, or translating directions into ASL or another language were all considered to be linguistic accommodations, yet states vary on whether each of these are appropriate.

Novel Concepts of Accommodations

Finally, some states are experimenting with novel concepts of accommodation use by putting the student in the place of selecting or creating a tool and determining whether it is appropriate or not during the assessment (See Appendix B, Table B-5b). For example, a student can create a graphic organizer rather than having it provided by an adult if he or she determines it is needed during the course of an assessment. This contributes to the definition of accommodations by providing an embedded "other" category to students during the course of an assessment. It emphasizes the role of the student, and shifts the timing of the decision to use the accommodation to the realized point of need. Many states require accommodations to be settled beforehand for logistical reasons, but this approach has its positive side for those accommodations that do not require advanced preparation. Whether students’ self-chosen accommodations would be valid and allowable for all domains of the state ELP assessment was not addressed. This should be clarified.

Summary

Overall, 31 states had information on accommodation policies for ELLs with disabilities for state ELP assessments (see Appendix B, Table B-3a). Of these, 13 states allowed excluding a student based on his or her disability category for one or more domains of a state ELP assessment (Appendix B, Table B-4a). Most of the students allowed to be excluded were those ELLs who are hard of hearing/deaf or who had visual impairments or blindness. Ten states allowed exclusion based on severity of disability. Of the states addressing exclusion, only two states named specific potential alternatives for domain assessments, with one of these states attempting to bridge state ELP standards to those ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities in offering a beginning version of an alternate assessment; the version being used was a checklist.

For participation, three states allowed exclusion in part or in whole based on students taking or needing to participate in an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. One of these states is revising its manual. One is excluding these students only for its reading and writing assessment, and one state has a blanket exemption from the assessment as a whole. Two other states did not allow exclusions based on whether a student takes an alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

Across accommodation categories, the accommodation that most states allowed across all domains was repeat, reread and clarify directions (N=20). The accommodation most states had a policy for or against was the use of proctors or scribes (N=26). The most prohibited accommodation among states was spellchecker/assistance/dictionary use (N=17).

The diverging policies seem to show that states are trying their best to balance the following two requirements in Title III law: to gain an understanding of a student’s level of academic language proficiency and the proficiency of that student within the specific domains of reading, writing, speaking and listening. But balancing these goals often result in trade-offs reflected negatively in participation and accommodation policies (e.g., opting to exclude a student from participation or their scores from accountability).

This brief summary of findings suggest some promising practices and some issues that were found in our analysis of states’ guidelines for ELLs with disabilities participating in ELP assessments. Some promising practices were as follows:

A high number of states valued individual student needs in decision making.
It is helpful to provide information in a list showing where specific accommodations were allowed or not in chart form by domain of the assessment (e.g., reading, writing, listening, and speaking). Though practitioners need additional information for actual decision making.
Some states are addressing how to administer ELP assessments to ELLs with the lowest English language proficiency (e.g., new arrival, or incremental administration by domain subtests based on individual needs), and those with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Design strategies being used for ELP assessments include features that are usually beneficial to the majority of ELLs, for example, aiding comprehension with visuals and assessing domain skills through typically occurring interactions (e.g, speaking and listening). However, design strategies should also include flexibility for a range of students for whom these features are not beneficial.
Some states, if not currently offering braille versions of their tests, are open to the possibility of braille versions in the future.
Many states have been specific in noting acceptable accommodations (for ELLs and ELLs with disabilities) and acknowledge that decision making is an ongoing process.
The line between standard accommodations and what a state considers optional best practice during test administration is becoming blurred. This may be seen as positive or negative. For the student and educator, it may be good to integrate that information under general procedures, but it is harder to study policy differences across states when what is generally considered an accommodation or modification in one state (e.g., allowing instructional posters to remain on walls) is described as general or optional practice in another.
Some states are experimenting with novel definitions of accommodations with the student selecting or creating a tool (e.g., graphic organizer) at the realized point of need during an assessment.

Summarizing the issues in the discussion, participation issues clearly need to be revisited on behalf of those ELLs singled out for exemption based on their particular disability or the severity of their disability(ies). Some key questions arising from the analysis include these:

Are current state ELP assessments designed in a way that allows for valid assessment of English language proficiency across domains for all ELLs including those with a range of disabilities?
How can states balance the need to maintain the validity of the construct being assessed and yet also include all students and obtain valid scores for them?
What are the consequences of "too many modifications" or the systematic exclusion from one or more domain subtests in providing a valid picture of an ELLs academic language proficiency?
Are there design features in a state ELP assessment that prevent some ELLs from showing their language skills across the domains (e.g., demonstration of skills contingent on other skills or abilities)?
Are states consistent in the terms used to describe accommodations and modifications, where the latter is used for changes that alter what the test is measuring? If some accommodations (usually referring to changes that will not affect scoring) do have consequences in scoring or accountability, are these explicitly stated?
Because many states considered instructional accommodations in their decision making for accommodations on state assessments, might there also be unidentified (positive or negative) consequences for instruction that flow from what accommodations or modifications are allowed on an ELP assessment and other state assessments?
Are linguistic accommodations explained in manuals that specifically prohibit these types of accommodations on ELP assessments? Because some accommodations for ELLs may be considered direct or indirect linguistic accommodations, guidance should be explicit on what accommodations are prohibited.
Are allowed or prohibited accommodations explained clearly in manuals?
What other policy issues need to be addressed based on the potential purposes a state may have for the assessment (e.g., if students are consistently excluded from certain domain subtests can they ever be redesignated as former ELL or graduate)?

Also, states need to consider ELLs with significant cognitive disabilities in ELP assessments who are being held to alternate achievement standards based on grade level content. It is important for states to identify how the ELP standards across the four domains relate to these alternate achievement standards and to the characteristics of their state ELP assessment in order to provide the guidance necessary to make participation and accommodation decisions for these students. That a few states have begun to address these students is encouraging, but clearly, more guidance is needed in this area.

Finally, it may be that a state has an ELP assessment designed to be valid and reliable for measuring the language development required by Title III in a format accessible to the entire ELL population, with allowable accommodations and modifications. But states not confident that their ELP assessment does this for all of their ELLs may need to consider alternate ways of assessing academic language proficiency.

References

Abedi, J. (2006, April). Accommodations for English language learners that may alter the construct being measured. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Albus, D., Klein, J. A., Liu, K., & Thurlow, M. (2004). Connecting English language proficiency, statewide assessments, and classroom proficiency (LEP Projects Report 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. (2005). Types of accommodations. Retrieved February 2, 2007, from http://ceee.gwu.edu/AA/Accommodations_Types.html#direct

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.

Kearns, J., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J. (2006). Learning characteristics inventory (LCI) report. Lexington, KY: National Alternate Assessment Center.

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.

Minnema, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., VanGetson, G. R., Jimenez, R. (2006). Large-scale assessments and English language learners with disabilities: A case study of participation, performance, and perceptions, "walking the talk!" (ELLs with Disabilities Report 15). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ELLsDis15/

National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects (NARAP). (2006). Defining reading proficiency for accessible large-scale assessments: Some guiding principles and issues. Minneapolis, MN: Author.

National Research Council. (2004). Keeping score for all: The effects of inclusion and accommodation policies on large-scale educational assessments. Judith A. Koenig and Lyle F. Bachman, (Eds). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Rivera, C., & Collum, E. (Eds.). (2006). State assessment policy and practice for English language learners, a national perspective. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Rivera, C., Stansfield, C., Scialdone, L., & Sharkey, M. (2000). An analysis of state policies for the inclusion and accommodation of English language learners in state assessment programs during 1998–1999. Arlington, VA: Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.

Thurlow, M., House, A., Boys, C., Scott, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (2000). State participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities: 1999 update (Synthesis Report No. 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.

Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M., & Sapru, S. (2003). Policy report: Summary of findings related to LEP and SPED-LEP students, Submitted by Development Associates, Inc., to U.S. Department of Education, Office of Englisih Language Acquisitioin, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement of Limited English Proficient Students.

Appendix A

State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation and Accommodations Policies*

Alabama	Alabama Department of Education. (April, 2005). 504 accommodations checklist: Assessing comprehension and communication in English state to state for English language learners (ACCESS for ELLs). Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/documents.asp?section=91&sort=8&footer=sections Alabama Department of Education (April, 2005). IEP accommodations checklist: Assessing comprehension and communication in English state to state for English language learners (ACCESS for ELLs). Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/documents.asp?section=91&sort=8&footer=sections Alabama Department of Education. (April, 2005). LEP/ELL participation documentation. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/documents.asp?section=91&sort=8&footer=sections
Alaska	Alaska Department of Education. (December, 2005). Guidance for limited English proficient (LEP) student identification and assessment. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://www.educ.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/elp/LEP_Guidance_2005.pdf Alaska Department of Education. (March, 2006). ELP test coordinator’s guidance. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://www.educ.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/elp/ELPTestCoordGuidance.pdf Alaska Department of Education. (June, 2005). Participation guidelines for Alaska students in state assessments. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from: http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/elp.html
Arizona	Arizona Department of Education. (August, 2005). Testing accommodations: Guidelines for 2005–2006. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://www.ade.az.gov/standards/aims/administering/TestAccommodations2005-06.pdf
Arkansas	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
California	California Department of Education. (January, 2006). Matrix of Test Variations, Accommodations and Modifications for California Statewide. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/matrix5.doc California Department of Education. (February, 2006). Test Variations, Accommodations, Modifications, and Alternate Assessment. Retrieved May 22, 2006, from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/section3astpkt.pdf
Colorado	Colorado Department of Education. (March 23, 2006). CELA update. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cde_english/download/CELA/CELAupdates.pdf Colorado Department of Education. (February 24, 2006). 2006 CELA pretest workshop slides. Retrieved May 26, 2006, from: http://www.ctb.com/netcaster/extranet/category_index.jsp;jsessionid=EYxNfbb1huG32Cv1ohUtwp3whmiZ2za2w8w2F9XpDuELyc03OVzH!263545368!-1408233562!5008!6008?CAT_ID=1304&PROG_ID=1244&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474395213825&bmUID=1146679565602
Connecticut	NCEO did not purchase examiner guides from testing companies for this study. The Connecticut Department of Education did reference LAS Links Examiner’s Guide page 5 and page 9, 17–19, but this was not included in our analysis. LAS Links was used for the first time for the annual assessment of English language proficiency in the spring of 2006 and will continue to be used by Connecticut for the annual assessment.
Delaware	State of Wisconsin. (2004). District and school test administration manual, access for ELLs, form 100. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/bilingual/pdfs/access_admin_manual.pdf Wida Consortium. (March, 2005). Accommodations for ACCESS for ELLs. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from: http://www.wida.us/ACCESSForELLs/accommodations Delaware follows the WIDA consortium policies for accommodations on the administration of the ACCESS. We have not yet set cut scores/levels to be used to help make decisions about program entry/exit – we plan to do that in August 2006.
District of Columbia	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
Florida	Florida Department of Education. (June, 2005). Comprehensive English language learning assessment (CELLA). Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://www.firn.edu/doe/omsle/pdf/cella.pdf
Georgia	State of Wisconsin. (2004). District and school test administration manual, access for ELLs, form 100. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from: http://tinyurl.com/rnslj Georgia Department of Education. (August, 2005). Georgia student assessment program student assessment handbook, 2005–2006. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from: http://tinyurl.com/qtyux Georgia Department of Education. (August, 2005). Other state supported tests. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from: http://tinyurl.com/olxkn M. Fincher (Personal communication, May 30, 2006). "Georgia’s policy on accommodations for students with disabilities is consistent with WIDA’s policy, with one exception. WIDA permits the translation of test directions into the student’s native language and Georgia does not. In Georgia, all tests are administered in English, only."
Hawaii	Hawaii Department of Education. (February, 16, 2006). Addendum No. 1. Guide to the 2006 Hawaii State Assessment and Adequate Yearly Progress (rev. & comp. 2-3-05; rev. 4-8-05 & 4-28-05, rev. & comp. 7-5-05; rev. & comp. 1-11-06). Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://arch.k12.hi.us/pdf/nclb/Guide2006Addendum021606.pdf
Idaho	Idaho State Department of Education. (2006). IELA 2006 examiner manual general instructions form A kindergarten. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/lep/documents/ID06-A-EX-GeneralInstructions.pdf Idaho State Department of Education. (2006). IELA 2006 examiner manual general instructions form B grades 1–2. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/lep/documents/ID06-B-EX-GeneralInstructions.pdf Idaho State Department of Education. (2006). IELA 2006 examiner manual general instructions form C grades 3–5. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/lep/documents/ID06-C-EX-GeneralInstructions.pdf Idaho State Department of Education. (2006). IELA 2006 examiner manual general instructions form D grades 6–8. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/lep/documents/ID06-D-EX-GeneralInstructions.pdf Idaho State Department of Education. (2006). IELA 2006 examiner manual general instructions form E grades 9–12. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/lep/documents/ID06-E-EX-GeneralInstructions.pdf Idaho State Department of Education (2006). Test Accommodations Order Form. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from: http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/lep/LEPAssessment.asp
Illinois	State of Wisconsin. (2004). District and school test administration manual, access for ELLs, form 100. Retrieved May 1, 2006, from: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/bilingual/pdfs/access_admin_manual.pdf
Indiana	Indiana Department of Education. (n.d.). English language development assessment (ELDA): Test development and content overview, (Powerpoint presentation). Retrieved May 18, 2006, but no longer posted. Current online documents indicate a change to LAS Links.
Iowa	C. Sosa (personal communication, May 16, 2006) "Iowa follows to the extend (sic) applicable the accommodation policies for ELDA as stated in the document." The document referred to is the following ELDA manual. Council of Chief State School Officers. (Spring, 2006). English language development assessment test administration manual. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://www.myscschools.com/offices/assessment/Programs/ELDA/documents/2006ELDATestAdministrationManual.pdf
Kansas	Kansas State Department of Education. (2006). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate accommodations for instruction and assessment, Draft for Piloting 2005–2006. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from: http://www.kansped.org/ksde/assmts/ksgen/AccommMan06.pdf
Kentucky	Kentucky Department of Education. (February, 2004). Inclusion of special populations. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from: http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Administrative+Resources/Testing+and+Reporting+/CATS/Policies+and+Regulations/Inclusion+of+Special+Populations+Document.htm S. Hale (personal communication, May 18, 2006). "Kentucky has joined the WIDA consortium and will use the ACCESS for ELLs as the annual ELP assessment and the WIDA’s identification test, W-APT. The contract begins July 1, 2006, and the annual test in spring 2007."
Louisiana	Louisiana Department of Education. (February, 2006). English language development assessment district test coordinator 2006 pretest workshop. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from: http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/8459.pdf
Maine	Maine Department of Education. (n.d.). WIDA consortium guidelines for testing accommodations on the ACCESS for ELLs English language proficiency test. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.maine.gov/education/esl/AccommodationsforACCESSforELLs.htm
Maryland	Maryland Department of Education. (2005). A guide to selecting, administering, and evaluating the use of accommodations effective for instruction and assessment in the 2005–2006 school year. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/840EFBB6-CD7D-404E-8A77-E978F6D508AA/9536/Accommodations_Manual20052006_updated.pdf M. Kehe (personal communication, July, 2006). "[The IPT]...has been replaced by LAS-Links. ... We are revising the manual and will issue a new version around Sept. 1, 2006."
Massachusetts	Massachusetts Department of Education. (Spring, 2006). Requirements for the participation of students with limited English proficiency in MCAS and MEPA. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from: http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/2006/news/lep_partreq.pdf
Michigan	Michigan Department of Education. (March, 2006). Accommodations summary table. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Exhibit_B_Accommodations_Table_127886_7.pdf Michigan Department of Education. (Spring, 2006). Information regarding spring 2006 ELPA administration. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-22709_40192-134891--,00.html
Minnesota	Minnesota Department of Education. (March, 2006). Procedures manual for the Minnesota assessments (Includes the guidelines for accommodations) 2005–2006. Retrieved May 17, 2006, from: http://education.state.mn.us/mde/static/2005-06%20Procedures%20Manual%20Rev%203-1-06.doc Minnesota Department of Education. (n.d.). Addenda to the 2005–06 Procedures Manual. Retrieved June 21, 2006, from: http://education.state.mn.us/mde/static/Addenda%20to%20Procedures%20Manual%201.2.doc

Mississippi	Mississippi Department of Education. (January, 2005). ELL (English language learner) updates 2004/2005 school year. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from: http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ACAD/osa/04_05_reminders_for_ell.pdf Mississippi Department of Education. (December, 2003). Frequently asked questions about English language learners (ELL). Retrieved April 17, 2006, from: http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/ACAD/osa/specpop.html
Missouri	Missouri Department of Education. (n.d.). 2006 MELL test coordinator manual. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from: http://www.dese.mo.gov/divimprove/fedprog/discretionarygrants/bilingual-esol/2006MELLtestcoordmanual-v4.pdf
Montana	L. Hinch (personal communication, May 19, 2006) "At this point we have not formulated guidance on accommodations for students with disabilities for the new assessment but it is likely that the accommodations would be similar to those provided in our current statewide assessments."
Nebraska	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
Nevada	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
New Hampshire	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
New Jersey	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
New Mexico	New Mexico Department of Education. (April, 2006). New Mexico English language proficiency assessment (NMELPA) accommodations for students with disabilities. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://www.sde.state.nm.us/div/acc.assess/assess/dl/NMELPA/2006%20NMELPA_Accommodations.pdf
New York	New York State Education Department. (Spring, 2006). New York state English as a second language achievement test, NYSESLAT, school administrator’s manual. Retrieved May 31, 2006, from: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/osa/sam/nyseslat06.pdf
North Carolina	North Carolina Department of Education. (January, 2005). Frequently asked questions (FAQ) – IDEA English language proficiency test (IPT). Retrieved April 17, 2006, from: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/policyoperations/faqiptjanuary2005.pdf S. McManus (personal communication, May 26, 2006). North Carolina also recommended we look at IPT Examiner’s Manuals. However, NCEO did not purchase manuals from test companies for this study, so these were not included in our analysis. The state also noted that currently they are working on a form for IEP teams to document accommodations for the IPT. It will be available online at: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/policies/tswd
North Dakota	North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. (2005). 2005 Test Coordinator’s Manual. Retrieved June 15, 2006, from: http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/testing/assess/manual05.pdf North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Including students with limited English proficiency in large scale assessment. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from: http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/bilingul/standards/accomodations.pdf
Ohio	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
Oklahoma	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
Oregon	Oregon Department of Education. (January, 2006). 2005–2006 accommodations tables, English language proficiency assessment (ELPA) administration, Retrieved April 12, 2006, from: http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/testing/admin/ell/asmtelpaaccommtable0506.pdf
Pennsylvania	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.
Rhode Island	Rhode Island Department of Education. (March, 2005). Accommodations for ACCESS for ELLs. Retrieved April 4, 2006, from: http://www.wida.us/ACCESSForELLs/accommodations from link on state site http://www.ridoe.net/assessment/ELL/ELL_Default.htm
South Carolina	South Carolina Department of Education. (n.d.). ELDA for grades 3–12, 2006 administration. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://www.myscschools.com/offices/assessment/Programs/ELDA/documents/2006ELDA3-12Administration1.ppt South Carolina Department of Education. (Spring, 2006). English language development assessment, test administration manual. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://www.myscschools.com/offices/assessment/Programs/ELDA/documents/2006ELDATestAdministrationManual.pdf
South Dakota	South Dakota Department of Education. (n.d.). Overview of the South Dakota assessment system. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://doe.sd.gov/octa/assessment/docs/SDassessment.pdf
Tennessee	Tennessee Department of Education. (March, 2006). ELL students and Tennessee assessments, 2005–2006 English language learner (ELL) accommodations. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from: http://tennessee.gov/education/fedprog/doc/fp_TESTPolicy_Spring_06.pdf Tennessee Department of Education. (Spring, 2006). Tennessee comprehensive assessment program achievement test, grades K-8, test administration manual. Retrieved July 10, 2006, from: http://tennessee.gov/education/assessment/doc/tsachtam.pdf
Texas	Texas Education Agency. (Spring, 2006). RPTE reading proficiency tests in English, test administrator manual, grades 2–12. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/resources/guides/test_admin/2006/rpte_TAM.pdf
Utah	J. Quinn (personal communication, May 22, 2006). Accommodation policy including this test will be available fall 2006.
Vermont	M. Hock (personal communication, May 16, 2006). Vermont uses the WIDA/ACCESS for ELLs Accommodations, but this is not posted on the Vermont State Education Web site. The information for the WIDA test was not posted on the Vermont site, but rather at the WI and WIDA sites. State of Wisconsin. (2004). District and school test administration manual, access for ELLs, form 100. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/bilingual/pdfs/access_admin_manual.pdf Wida Consortium. (March, 2005). Accommodations for ACCESS for ELLs. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from: http://www.wida.us/ACCESSForELLs/accommodations Wisconsin State Department. (2005). http://www.wida.us/ACCESSForELLs/accommodations

Virginia	Virginia Department of Education. (2005). Commonwealth of Virginia department of education testing memo No. 500, February 1, 2005. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Instruction/ESL/SELP500memo.pdf Virginia Department of Education. (2006). Commonwealth of Virginia department of education testing memo No. 540, February 17, 2006. Retrieved March 31, 2006, from: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/SELP06/checklist.pdf Virginia Department of Education. (Spring, 2006). Virginia Stanford English language proficiency test, test implementation manual for the division director of testing and school test coordinators. Retrieved May 18, 2006, from: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/VDOE/Assessment/SELP/VA06_SELP_TIM.pdf
Washington	Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006). Washington language proficiency test II (WLPT-II), a component of the Washington state assessment system, test coordinator manual spring 2006. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://www.k12.wa.us/Assessment/TestAdministration/pubdocs/WLPTTCM_2006.pdf Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Accommodations checklist for special populations, additional accommodations for the following special populations: Section 504 plan, special education, state transitional bilingual, and limited English migrant program students. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://www.k12.wa.us/Assessment/pubdocs/AccommodationCheckList.pdf
West Virginia	Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004). English language development assessment district test coordinator manual, spring 2004 field test. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://wvconnections.k12.wv.us/documents/DTCmanual2006.doc Council of Chief State School Officers. (2005). English language development assessment, district test coordinator manual, spring 2006. Retrieved April 6, 2006, from: http://wvconnections.k12.wv.us/documents/TestAdministrationManual2006.doc West Virginia Department of Education. (April 12, 2004). Title 126, legislative rule board of education, series 15: Programs of study for limited English proficient students (2417). Retrieved June 15, 2006, from: http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2417.doc
Wisconsin	State of Wisconsin. (2004). District and school test administration manual, access for ELLs, form 100. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from: http://www.isbe.state.il.us/bilingual/pdfs/access_admin_manual.pdf WIDA Consortium. (March, 2005). Accommodations for ACCESS for ELLs. Retrieved April 5, 2006, from: http://www.wida.us/ACCESSForELLs/accommodations
Wyoming	No document publicly available online and no state document verified.

* All state assessment documents that could potentially have accommodations information in them were collected. But these represent those documents that had at least some mention of information related to participation or accommodations for state ELP assessments.

Appendix B

Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State

Table B-1a. Summary of Participation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Make Decisions About How ELLS with Disabilities Participate in Statewide ELP Assessments as a Whole

State	Nature of Instruction or level of adapting of curriculum	Ability to address the performance level assessed in the ELP test	IEP Team Decision	Severity of Disability	Review test characteristics	Review state and federal regulations (e.g., know options and what invalidates scores, etc.)	Student takes state alternate assesment
CA	X*	X*	X	X*	X*	X*
CO							X*
DE				X*
GA				X*
IL				X*
MD¹			X				X*
ME				X*
RI				X*
TX			X	X*
VA			X	X*
VT				X*
WI				X*
Total	1	1	4	10	1	1	2

^{1 Maryland is
currently revising its accommodations
manual following the adoption of its new
ELP assessment. The chart reflects the
content of the manual under revision.
* See Table B-2b for
additional information about the
variable.}
Table B-1b. Specification of Participation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Make Decisions About How ELLS with Disabilities Participate in Statewide ELP Assessments as a Whole

State	Specification
CA	Nature of instruction note: The student requires extensive instruction in multiple settings to acquire, maintain, and generalize skills necessary for application in school, work, home, and community environments. Demonstrates academic/cognitive ability and adaptive behavior that require substantial adjustments to the general curriculum. The student may participate in many of the same activities as his/her nondisabled peers; however, the student’s learning objectives and expected outcomes focus on the functional applications of the general curriculum. Ability to address the performance level assessed in the ELP test note: The student cannot address the performance level assessed in the CELDT even with accommodations or modifications. Specific disability note: Determine the alternate assessment(s) a student needs for any section of the CELDT and how the handicapping condition precludes the student from taking all or a section of the CELDT. Review test characteristics note: Note that (1) accommodations produce valid results because they do not alter the test construct and (2) modifications do alter the test construct and results are considered invalid. Also, determine the alternate assessment(s) a student needs for any section fo the CELDT and how the handicapping condition precludes the student from taking all or a second of the CELDT [emphasis on looking at the sections of the test for potential exclusion based on disability]. Review state and federal regulations notes: Title 5 California Code of Regulations, CELDT; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA); and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.
CO	Colorado for the time being exempts ELLs who are taking their state’s alternate CSAPA.
DE	The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled.
GA	The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled.
IL	The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled.
ME	The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled.
MD	Some students who are in Special Education, such as those who participate in the Alt-MSA, may be unable to demonstrate their English language proficiency on the ELPT, even with accommodations. In such cases, the IEP team and the ELL Team must collaborate to jointly determine English language proficiency test participation.
RI	The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled.

TX	An LEP student who receives special education services may be exempted from the English language proficiency assessments required by §101.1001 of this title (relating to English Language Proficiency Assessments) only if the ARD committee determines that these assessments cannot provide a meaningful measure of the student’s annual growth in English language proficiency for reasons associated with the student’s disability.
VA	The attached Checklist for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities may be used to meet the requirements of evaluating and reporting English language progress and proficiency for certain K-12 LEP students as required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This individual checklist should be used only for those LEP students with significant cognitive disabilities who the IEP team or school-based LEP committee has determined cannot take the Stanford English Language Proficiency (SELP) Test for the 2005–2006 school year. It is recommended that the individual checklist be used for eligible LEP students to determine the level of English language proficiency and be completed by the student’s teacher. School divisions may use the results to complete federal and state reports. The completed checklists serve as documentation and should be maintained locally on file.
VT	The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled.
WI	The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled.

Table B-2. Participation Policy Variables That Cannot Be Used to Make Decisions About Whether Students with Disabilities Will Participate in a Regular State ELP Assessment as a Whole

State	Category of Disability	Has Significant Cognitive Disabilities	Excessive Absences	Percent Time Receiving Special Education Services	Cultural, Social, Linguistic, or Environmental Factors
CA	X		X	X	X
CO	X¹
HI		X
NY		X
Total	2	2	1	1	1

^{1 Colorado does
not allow an exemption for a child with
oral motor issues who is not on an IEP
or under 504 regulations.}

Table B-3a. Additional Testing Options*

State	Had Additional Options for ELP Assessment	Had No Additional Options for ELP Assessment	Participation Not Addressed for ELP Assessment	Had Online Documents Addressing ELLs with Disabilities for ELP Assessment
AK			X	X
AL			X	X
AR			X
AZ			X	X
CA	X**			X
CO			X	X
CT			X
DC			X
DE			X	X
FL			X
GA			X	X
HI		X		X
IA			X	X
ID			X	X
IL			X	X
IN			X
KS			X
KY¹			X
LA			X	X
MA			X	X
MD			X	X
ME	X**			X
MI			X	X
MN			X	X
MO			X
MS			X	X
MT			X
NC²			X
ND			X
NE			X
NH			X
NJ			X
NM			X	X
NV			X
NY		X		X
OH			X
OK			X
OR			X	X
PA			X
RI			X	X
SC			X	X
SD			X	X
TN			X	X
TX			X	X
UT³			X
VA	X**			X
VT			X	X
WA			X	X
WI				X
WV			X	X
WY			X
Total	3	2	45	31

^{1
Kentucky has joined the WIDA consortium
and will use the ACCESS for ELL’s as the
annual ELP assessment and the WIDA’s
identification test, W-APT. The contract
begins July 1, 2006, and the annual test
is in spring 2007 (S. Hale, personal
communication, May 18, 2006).

^{2 North Carolina
also recommended we look at IPT
Examiner’s Manuals. However, NCEO did
not purchase manuals from test companies
for this study, so these were not
included in our analysis. The state also
noted that currently they are working on
a form for IEP teams to document
accommodations for the IPT. It will
eventually be available online at
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/policies/tswd
(S. McManus, personal communication, May
26, 2006).
^{3 An accommodation
policy for Utah including this test will
be available fall 2006 (J. Quinn,
personal communication, May 22, 2006).

*Additional testing
options definition: The state has or has
suggested other means of testing English
language proficiency for some students.
This includes (1) suggestions that an
ELL with certain characteristics would
be better assessed with another
instrument and (2) suggestions of one or
more specific alternate instruments to
use.

**See Table B-1b for
descriptions of additional testing
options.}}

Table B-3b. Description
of Additional Testing Options

State

Description

CA

Alternate
assessments provide an alternate
means to measure the English
language proficiency of students
with disabilities whose IEP
teams have determined that they
are unable to participate in the
CELDT even with variations,
accommodations, or
modifications.
The English
language proficiency assessment
instruments below can be used to
assess English proficiency of
students with severe
disabilities who cannot take the
CELDT and receive a valid score
even with test variations,
accommodations, or
modifications. The IEP teams
determine which students need
alternate assessments and how
they should be assessed.
One purpose of
the CELDT is to measure the
English language proficiency of
students to ensure appropriate
instructional placement. This
purpose should be kept in mind
when choosing alternate
assessments. No single alternate
assessment instrument can
effectively assess all of the
required domains—i.e.,
listening, speaking, reading and
writing. More than one alternate
assessment, therefore, is
necessary to measure the English
proficiency of a student. Each
instrument must be reviewed with
the individual student in mind.
School districts may select an
alternate assessment instrument
not on this list. This list is
not exhaustive nor does it
constitute an endorsement by the
CDE.
If a student has
not taken the entire CELDT, the
student report will indicate a
beginning proficiency level for
any section that was not
administered. It is the
responsibility of the IEP team
to review the results of the
alternate assessments and the
CELDT to determine the student’s
actual level of English language
proficiency. Results of
alternate assessments are not
submitted to the CDE.

Test Name:
Alternative Language Proficiency
Instrument (ALPI)
Purpose:
Measures receptive and
expressive language; grades
K-12.
Contact
Organization: Orange County
Department of Education

Test Name: Basic
Inventory of Natural Language (BINL)
Purpose:
Measures of oral language
proficiency; grades K-12
Contact
Organization: CHECpoint System,
Inc.

Test Name:
Student Oral language
Observation Matrix (SOLOM)
Purpose:
Unstandardized, teacher-rated
oral language proficiency,
grades K-12
Contact
Organization: CDE, Standards and
Assessment

Test Name:
Student Oral Proficiency Rating
Purpose:
Measures of oral language
ability; grades K-6
Contact
Organization: Development
Associates (Annette Zehler)

State

Description

ME

ACCESS for ELLs™
is not available in braille from
WIDA. A braille version is not
available because WIDA does not
provide a braille translation.
Rendering reading passages into
braille would alter the
construct being tested, in this
case reading in English.
Furthermore, ACCESS for ELLs™
relies heavily on visual
graphics to assist in making the
English language comprehensible.
Graphic support is ubiquitous in
all domains of the ACCESS for
ELLs™. The inability to
"translate" these visuals into
braille would put blind students
at a competitive disadvantage.
WIDA recommends, therefore, that
ELLs who are blind not
participate in the reading and
writing portions of ACCESS for
ELLs™. IEP teams should
recommend alternative
assessments of reading, writing,
listening and speaking that have
been designed for and normed
with students who are blind and
are less reliant on graphic
cues. WIDA discourages local
educators from translating the
reading and writing sections to
braille for these same reasons,
but it does not prohibit this,
should the IEP team decide it is
in the student’s best interest
to do so.

VA

To meet the
requirements of evaluating and
reporting English language
progress and proficiency for all
kindergarten through 12 LEP
students as required by NCLB,
the English language proficiency
of LEP students with significant
cognitive disabilities should be
assessed through the Virginia
Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP).
Division directors of testing
will be provided detailed
information at a later date.

Table B-4a:
Circumstances in Which Students Are
Not Included in One or More ELP
Assessment Sections: Listening, Reading,
Speaking, Writing¹}

State	Exclusion Prohibited	Parent Exemption	Emotional Distress	Medical Condition/ Illness	Student Refusal	Disruptive Behavior	Absence	Takes State Alternate	By Specific Disability	IEP Team with or without LEP team	Other²
CA										A*
CO	A*	A*					A*	A*		A*	X*
DE									A*	A*
GA									A*	A*
HI	A
IA							A*
ID									L, S	L, S
IL									A*	A*
MA								R W*	R,W,S*
ME									R, W	L, S
MD³			A*	A*				A*		A*
MN		A*		A*			A*			A*
MS									L*		X*
NY	A*			A*			A*				X*
RI									A*	A*
SC							A*
TX				A*			A*		A*	A*	X*
VT⁴									A*	A*
VA				A*	A*	A*	A*		A*	A*	X*
WA		A*			A*		A*		A*		X*
WI									A*	A*
WV							A*
Total	3	3	1	5	2	1	9	3	13	14	6

^{1Please refer to
the following legend for interpreting
the letters. "A" means a factor was
either explicitly applied or inferred
for all domain areas of reading,
writing, speaking and listening. The
letters R, W, L and S are used when a
state explicitly indicated one domain
skill of reading, writing, listening or
speaking. For letters with asterisks
(indicated there is a note), the
separation of letters by commas
indicates that there is a clarification
note that applies to the test(s)
represented by each letter. If there is
a letter group not separated by a comma
(RW*), the note applies to the group of
letters.
^{2 See Table B-4b
for descriptions of "other"
circumstances.
^{3 Maryland’s
current manual mentions the IPT test.
The state is currently updating their
manual to include their new test, LAS
Links
^{4Vermont’s
Information was not available on the
State Web site. Via email, the state
communicated that it abides by WIDA’s
accommodation policies.

* See Table B-4c for additional
information about the variable.}}}}

Table B-4b. Specifications and Descriptions of "Other" Circumstances in Which Students Are Not Included in One or More ELP Assessment Sections: Listening, Reading, Speaking, Writing

State	Other Criteria
CO	Test Invalidation: INV, if the test is invalidated, or EXP, if the student is exempted using the fields 11, 12, and 13. Per this policy: 1. (a) How will an invalid test affect our scores? A student will not receive a scale score for the test, but rather, there will be a notation on the report that says: INV, if the test is invalidated, ABS, if the student is absent, EXP, if the student is exempted using the fields 11, 12, and 13. Test Invalidation (11) Special circumstances that affect individual or group performance can invalidate test results. Mark the sections of the test that need to be invalidated. No score will be given for the sections marked. Consult the school test coordinator before invalidating any test section. See p. 5 in Examiner’s Manual. Test Exemptions (12)
MS	ELL (English Language Learner) Updates 2004/2005 School Year In the absence of a screening test, to assess an ELL student who cannot speak any or very little English on the Stanford English Language Proficiency (ELP) Test, the test administrator should start by administering the speaking test. If the student does not respond, the test administrator may stop the test administration. The test administrator should document that administration of the test was attempted and that the student did not respond. When completing the applicable English Proficiency scan form for the student, the student’s proficiency level in all areas will be Pre-Production.
NY	Student Cheating Do not permit students to obtain information from or give information to other students in any way during the test. If, in the opinion of the proctor, such an attempt has occurred, warn the student that any further attempts will result in termination of his or her tests. If necessary, move the student to another location. If these steps fail to end attempts to obtain or give information, notify the principal immediately and terminate the student’s test. Notify the principal of all instances in which a proctor suspects that a student has cheated. If, in the judgment of the principal, the student has given aid to or obtained aid from another person during the test, the principal must follow the school’s disciplinary procedure for student cheating and invalidate the student’s tests. Public and charter schools must report these students on the NYS Data Repository with a code of "97" to indicate administrative error. Nonpublic schools should not submit the papers to the Department. Invalidated tests may not be submitted for scoring. In addition, the principal must report the incident to the Department by fax to 518-402-5596.
TX	■ Second Semester Immigrants. LEP students who arrived in the United States for the first time during the second semester of the 2005–2006 school year are not required to take RPTE if they are deemed by the language proficiency assessment committee (LPAC) to read virtually no English. Second semester immigrant students should take RPTE if the LPAC determines that they can read some English. Note that immigrant students arriving in the second semester who are deemed to read virtually no English are not considered LEP-exempt. Answer documents for these students need to be gridded "N" in the RPTE score code field. These students are assigned an RPTE rating of "Beginning" and the minimum scale score. This will be their baseline score and the level against which their progress will be measured in the following year’s administration. The RPTE eligibility requirements above apply to the Grade 2 field test, except that it will not be necessary for the ARD committee to make and document the decision about whether to administer the field test to a second-grade LEP student served by special education. The ARD committee is not required to convene to determine field-test placement. In general, LEP students served by special education take RPTE if they receive Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) instruction in reading at least at the level of reading simple words and simple sentences. The individualized education program (IEP) of the student should contain enough information to make this determination. Additionally, irregularities in test security or confidential integrity may result in the invalidation of student results. Individualized Education Program (IEP) Implementation Issues Examples: ■ A student was administered an RPTE test at the wrong grade level. ■ A student was provided an unapproved accommodation or was not provided a prescribed accommodation. Monitoring Error Examples: ■ Allowing Prohibited Items or Activities • A student was improperly allowed to use a highlighter or dictionary.
VA	Testing Discontinued For students with minimum English skills, conduct the following steps to determine whether testing should be discontinued: 1) The Examiner should first administer the SELP Speaking subtest. 2) If the student is unable to answer the first five items of the Speaking subtest, the Examiner should stop testing. 3) In consultation with the STC or an ESL Specialist, the Examiner should choose another subtest (Reading, Writing, or Listening) and administer it to the student. The second subtest may be administered on the same or a different date than the Speaking subtest. 4) If the student is unable to answer the first five items of the second subtest attempted, then testing should be discontinued. Section Z—Testing Status/Circle 10—Testing Discontinued should be completed for all four subtests. Give special attention to completing the following codes: Circle 6—Other—If it is determined that a testing irregularity has occurred and retesting is required for one or more subtests, the DDOT must fax to the Virginia Department of Education the completed Test Irregularity Form (Appendix E) for specific instructions. Circle 10—Testing Discontinued—During an individual or group administration of the SELP subtests, it may become necessary for testing to be discontinued for an individual student with minimum English skills. The Examiner must ensure that the conditions on page 33 have occurred. Form VA-C Administrations First, the Examiner should administer one of four SELP subtests. If the student is unable to answer the first five items of the initial subtest attempted, the Examiner should stop testing. In consultation with the STC or an ESL Specialist, the Examiner should choose another subtest and administer it to the student. The second subtest may be administered on the same day or a different day than the first subtest. If the student is unable to answer the first five items of the second subtest attempted, then testing should be discontinued and no other subtests should be administered. Section Z—Testing Status/Circle 10—Testing Discontinued should be completed for all four subtests. (Refer to Section 5.12.3.) If testing is discontinued, the student’s score report will indicate an English language proficiency level 1. If the student’s reading subtest score is used as a substitute for the Reading test (grades 3 through 8), the score report will indicate "fail." Form VA-R Administrations During an individual or group administration of the Reading subtest with the read-aloud and/or bilingual dictionary accommodation(s), it may become necessary for testing to be discontinued for an individual student with minimum English skills. The Examiner must ensure that the following conditions have occurred: First, LEP students who are eligible to take the SELP Test, Form VA-R Reading subtest with the read aloud and/or bilingual dictionary accommodation(s) must have taken all subtests or attempted two subtests of the SELP Test using Form VA-C without the read-aloud and/or bilingual dictionary accommodation(s). If the Examiner, in consultation with the STC and/or an ESL specialist, discontinued testing of Form VA-C but determines that the student may attempt the Form VA-R Reading subtest with the read-aloud and/or bilingual dictionary, then the Examiner should administer the test. Second, if the Examiner determines that the student is unable to answer the first five items of the Form VA-R Reading subtest, testing should be discontinued and no other subtests should be administered. Section Z—Testing Status/Circle 10—Testing Discontinued should be completed for the Reading subtests attempted.
WA	Washington Language proficiency Test II (WLPT-II), A Component of the Washington State Assessment System, Test Coordinator Manual, Spring 2006 Coordinator Use (Back Cover) Boxes 9-12: This section should be completed by the School or District Assessment Coordinator after all testing is completed. These data augment the score file. Box 9 (INVALIDATION): Tests will be invalidated when the resulting scores are judged not to accurately reflect what the tested student knows and is able to do. Tests may be invalidated when the student was discovered cheating on a test, when the test administration was disrupted, or when the test was improperly administered. Please note that any student whose test has been invalidated will be treated as not having been tested. This means that these students will be scored as not meeting standard in any area invalidated. These students will be included in calculations of percentages of students meeting standard. Please make a list of all students who had a test that was invalidated, with the reason, and submit it to the District Assessment Coordinator. Box 11 (IF THIS STUDENT WAS NOT TESTED, INDICATE THE REASON): If a student was not tested, indicate the reason in Box 11. Mark "Y" by the applicable reason. The "N" circle is only used to correct a "Y" circle that has been incorrectly marked and erased. It is expected that all students enrolled during the dates of testing will be tested. However, if unusual circumstances prevent testing a student, the information requested on the back cover of the test booklet must still be completed for each student not tested, and the test booklet must be returned along with those of all others who attempted the tests. If an enrolled student was not tested, first make certain that all of the information on the back cover of the test booklet is completed for that student and then indicate in Box 11 follows: NT/Withdrawn This student was not tested and there is no documentation regarding absence or refusal, or was withdrawn during the testing window. Note: Booklets for students not enrolled during the testing window. February 6 through March 24, 2006, must be placed in the not to be scored/processed box.

Table B-4c. Specifications and Descriptions of Circumstances in Which Students Are Not Included in One or More ELP Assessment Sections: Listening, Reading, Speaking, Writing

State	Description of Special Circumstances
CA	IEP Team with or without LEP team: Section III Test Variations, Accommodations, Modifications, and Alternate Assessments February 2006, Prepared by the California Department of Education 4. Determine as an IEP team how the student will participate in the CELDT. Determine if the student will take the CELDT with or without test variations. This could include accommodations or modifications. Determine the alternate assessment(s) a student needs for any section of the CELDT and how the handicapping condition precludes the student from taking all or a section of the CELDT. Alternate assessments provide an alternate means to measure the English language proficiency of students with disabilities whose IEP teams have determined that they are unable to participate in the CELDT even with variations, accommodations, or modifications. The English language proficiency assessment instruments below can be used to assess English proficiency of students with severe disabilities who cannot take the CELDT and receive a valid score even with test variations, accommodations, or modifications. The IEP teams determine which students need alternate assessments and how they should be assessed. One purpose of the CELDT is to measure the English language proficiency of students to ensure appropriate instructional placement. This purpose should be kept in mind when choosing alternate assessments. No single alternate assessment instrument can effectively assess all of the required domains—i.e., listening, speaking, reading and writing. More than one alternate assessment, therefore, is necessary to measure the English proficiency of a student. Each instrument must be reviewed with the individual student in mind. School districts may select an alternate assessment instrument not on this list. This list is not exhaustive nor does it constitute an endorsement by the CDE.
CO	Exclusion Prohibited: Should there be an exemption for a child with oral motor issues who is not on an IEP or under 504 regulations? • Exemptions for students with such challenges are not appropriate - however, accommodations for such students should be made available. • While some accommodations may be obvious, the CDE Exceptional Students’ unit and "the field" will help to determine what other accommodations may be available, in order to provide the best possible indicators for the twice-exceptional ELL. Takes State Alternate and IEP Team with or without LEP Team: • At this time, ELLs on an IEP who are taking the CSAPA will be exempted from taking the CELA. • The IEP team has the final authority to determine whether a student is to take the CSAPA or the "regular" CSAP, and must consider as well, whether or not the student should take the CELA. Absence Note: CTB – Accommodations, invalidations, scoring, absences, etc. 1. (a) How will an invalid test affect our scores? (b) How will it affect the score if one section is marked as an absent? • Invalid tests yield "no score." • A student will not receive a scale score for the test, but rather, there will be a notation on the report that says: o INV, if the test is invalidated, o ABS, if the student is absent, o EXP, if the student is exempted using the fields 11, 12, and 13. Note: Federal law requires school districts to annually assess all ELLs. Please consider how your district intends to identify an absent student’s language proficiency, on its 2006 data submission for the Student October Count. Parent Exemption: How do we code the CELA student answer booklet if a parent refuses to have his/her ELL take the CELA? • If a parent refuses to have his/her ELL take the CELA, please code the student booklet as "exempt" from all four components of the CELA, and return the student booklet with all other testing material at the end of test administration. Note: The district must provide documentation to CDE that the parent(s) have opted the student out of the exam.
DE	By Specific Disability and IEP team with or without LEP team: The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled. 3. ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. If an IEP team determines that it is in the best interest of a student to make the test available in braille, the following guidelines are recommended to ensure the integrity of the assessment: a. The student must be braille proficient so as not to confound English language proficiency with proficiency in braille; b. braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills; d. The student’s responses should be transcribed verbatim by a school staff member into a regular ACCESS for ELLs™ test booklet for scoring; e. The writing assessment should be transcribed verbatim into the test book by a school staff member. 4. Deaf and hard of hearing students, including those for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is their first or primary language, can generally participate in the reading and writing sections of the test with few or no accommodations necessary. Lip-reading with spoken responses for those students who possess these abilities may be possible for the listening and speaking parts of the test. IEP teams should make such determinations on a case by case basis. Translating the listening and speaking prompts into sign language is equivalent to translating into another spoken language, such as Spanish or Arabic, and therefore is prohibited as it changes the construct and invalidates the test.

GA	By Specific Disability and IEP team with or without LEP team: The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled. 3. ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. If an IEP team determines that it is in the best interest of a student to make the test available in braille, the following guidelines are recommended to ensure the integrity of the assessment: a. The student must be braille proficient so as not to confound English language proficiency with proficiency in braille; b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills; d. The student’s responses should be transcribed verbatim by a school staff member into a regular ACCESS for ELLs™ test booklet for scoring; e. The writing assessment should be transcribed verbatim into the test book by a school staff member. 4. Deaf and hard of hearing students, including those for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is their first or primary language, can generally participate in the reading and writing sections of the test with few or no accommodations necessary. Lip-reading with spoken responses for those students who possess these abilities may be possible for the listening and speaking parts of the test. IEP teams should make such determinations on a case by case basis. Translating the listening and speaking prompts into sign language is equivalent to translating into another spoken language, such as Spanish or Arabic, and therefore is prohibited as it changes the construct and invalidates the test.
IA	Absence: Make-ups for absentees are permitted as long as they are within the testing window.
ID	By Specific Disability and IEP Team with or without LEP team: Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students. Lip-reading for those students who possess this ability may be possible for those parts of the test where the teacher reads the test questions aloud. A copy of the Listening Test Script is available and may be ordered using the IELA Test Accommodations Order Form, so that an examiner may administer the Listening Test to a deaf student with lip-reading ability. For the Speaking Test, a deaf student with lip-reading ability must also have the ability to answer in spoken English; otherwise the test should not be administered to him or her. IEP teams should make such determinations on a case by case basis. The Listening and Speaking prompts should not be translated into sign language. Doing so is equivalent to translating into another spoken language, such as Spanish, or Arabic, and thus would invalidate the test. However, those Reading and Writing prompts meant to be spoken by the teacher may be translated into sign language if necessary.
IL	By Specific Disability and IEP team with or without LEP team: The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled. 3. ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. If an IEP team determines that it is in the best interest of a student to make the test available in braille, the following guidelines are recommended to ensure the integrity of the assessment: a. The student must be braille proficient so as not to confound English language proficiency with proficiency in braille; b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills; d. The student’s responses should be transcribed verbatim by a school staff member into a regular ACCESS for ELLs™ test booklet for scoring; e. The writing assessment should be transcribed verbatim into the test book by a school staff member. 4. Deaf and hard of hearing students, including those for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is their first or primary language, can generally participate in the reading and writing sections of the test with few or no accommodations necessary. Lip-reading with spoken responses for those students who possess these abilities may be possible for the listening and speaking parts of the test. IEP teams should make such determinations on a case by case basis. Translating the listening and speaking prompts into sign language is equivalent to translating into another spoken language, such as Spanish or Arabic, and therefore is prohibited as it changes the construct and invalidates the test.
MA	By Specific Disability and Takes State Alternate: D. Participation of LEP Students with Disabilities in MEPA State and federal laws require that all LEP students, including those with disabilities, be assessed on their level of English proficiency. Except in the cases listed below, all LEP students with disabilities must participate in MEPA using the accommodations, if any, listed in their IEPs. 1. MEPA-R/W LEP students with disabilities are allowed to use necessary accommodations that are documented in their IEPs or 504 plans on MEPA tests. However, since the following accommodations are not available for MEPA-R/W tests, students who need these accommodations are not required to participate: • Braille (accommodation 12) • electronic text reader (accommodations 18 and 28) (In this case, teams may consider whether a different accommodation, such as reading the test aloud, would be appropriate) In addition, the following LEP students with disabilities are not required to participate in the MEPA-R/W tests: • students who require the MCAS Alternate Assessment • students who - are on an IEP on which the primary disability is reported as "deaf or hard of hearing" AND - require the administration of sessions 1 and 2 for the reading and/or writing tests. 2. MELA-O Students on an IEP whose primary disability is reported as deaf or hard of hearing are not required to participate in MELA-O. All other students, including students who are hard of hearing and use amplification devices, are required to participate.
MD	Maryland’s current manual includes information on the IPT test. However, the state is currently revising its manual to include the new language proficiency assessment, LAS Links. Policies in this table were for students generally and were not specifically in relation to a specific state assessment. Emotional Distress: Excused Students Prior to a test administration, if the principal and at least one other qualified school staff member or the LAC decide that testing would be severely harmful to a student, the student may be excused. The reason for the excuse must be documented in the student’s record. Examples of acceptable reasons include: a. The student has demonstrated by past performance that he/she cannot function in a testing situation. b. The student has had a recent traumatic experience, which has made him/her unable to cope with the testing situation. During testing, if a student demonstrates extreme frustration, disrupts others, becomes ill, etc., the teacher/test administrator may excuse the student from the test. Depending on the particular situation, the student may be given an opportunity to attempt the test again or make it up at a later date. Refer to the Maryland Assessment Summary (Section 4) for information on requirements and procedures for specific testing programs. Local school staff should always consult with their LAC if they have any questions about excusing a student from testing. Excused students will receive the lowest obtainable scale score for the assessment and will be placed in the "Basic" proficiency level for accountability purposes. Excused students: Students who demonstrate, or who are expected to experience inordinate frustration, distress, or disruption of others, or for medical reasons, may be excused prior to or during the tests. Excused students are assigned to the "Basic" proficiency level for Title III accountability purposes. Medical Condition/Illness: Exempted Students In general, no students are exempt from participation in the Maryland State Assessment Programs. Any rare exceptions to this (including, for example, exemptions related to medical emergencies) are noted on the pages relating to each assessment. Excused students: Students who demonstrate, or who are expected to experience inordinate frustration, distress, or disruption of others, or for medical reasons, may be excused prior to or during the tests. Excused students are assigned to the "Basic" proficiency level for Title III accountability purposes. Takes State Alternate: Excused Students No students may be excused from testing. All ELL students must participate in the program. If a student is experiencing difficulty coping during the testing situation, testing may be stopped, but the student must complete testing on another occasion during the testing window. Some students who are in Special Education, such as those who participate in the Alt-MSA, may be unable to demonstrate their English language proficiency on the ELPT, even with accommodations. In such cases, the IEP team and the ELL Team must collaborate to jointly determine English language proficiency test participation. Excused students: Students who demonstrate, or who are expected to experience inordinate frustration, distress, or disruption of others, or for medical reasons, may be excused prior to or during the tests. Excused students are assigned to the "Basic" proficiency level for Title III accountability purposes. IEP Team with or without LEP Team: How excused: Principal/staff decision documented in the ELL plan in the student’s cumulative record.
ME	By Specific Disability and IEP Team with or without LEP team: WIDA recommends, therefore, that ELLs who are blind not participate in the reading and writing portions of ACCESS for ELLs™. IEP teams should recommend alternative assessments of reading, writing, listening and speaking that have been designed for and normed with students who are blind and are less reliant on graphic cues. WIDA discourages local educators from translating the reading and writing sections to braille for these same reasons, but it does not prohibit this, should the IEP team decide it is in the student’s best interest to do so. For the time being, we leave it up to local educators and IEP teams to decide if certain domains are appropriate for individual deaf or hard of hearing students. Translating the listening and speaking domains into ASL is possible. However, the construct being tested has been altered, thus scores may not have the same meaning.
MN	Parent Exemption: REF—Refusal to take the test. Student’s parent or guardian requests that the district not administer the test to their child. Medical Condition: Students with valid medical excuses may be excluded from both the participation and proficiency AYP calculations. Districts must maintain appropriate documentation regarding the medical circumstances. Districts will send in a blank answer book/document with no test codes filled in for the student and then fill in the ME bubble (medical excuse) during the AYP correction process. [2005 AYP System Requirements/Business Rules] Other: Moving In or Out during the Testing Window; Students who are enrolled as of the first testing date designated for a test/subject are required to test in that subject at that district, if otherwise appropriate. If a student moves away from a district after taking the MCA-II for one subject, the answer book/document is sent in with the NE bubble filled in for the subject not taken. If a student moves into a district during the testing window and has not taken a test, give it to the student. If the student has already taken one of the tests, fill in the NE bubble for that subject; they do not need to take that test again, Significant Gap Students: The AYP Business rules provide for removing high-mobility students from proficiency calculations. Any student who has missed 15 consecutive days of school may be removed from the proficiency calculations for AYP in the Accountability Gateway window. See Accountability Gateway Users Guide for details. Suspended Students: Test participation and proficiency results for students who are on out-of-school suspension during the testing period and unable to make up the test are included in the AYP calculations at the school and district level unless a successful appeal is filed. Districts may appeal the inclusion of these students in the AYP calculations. See Accountability Gateway Users Guide for details. [2005 AYP System Requirements/Business Rules] Invalid Score: INV— Invalidate a student’s answer book. This is a decision made in the district based on inappropriate student actions or behavior during testing. Examples of inappropriate actions or behavior include copying from another student, providing answers to another student, using prohibited aids such as notes, being removed from the testing situation due to disruptive behavior or refusing to take any or all of the segments. In cases like these the School Assessment Coordinator must invalidate the test. The Test Monitor must notify the School Assessment Coordinator and document the incident on the Test Administration Report (see Appendix A). The student’s answer book/document must be coded "INV" and sent in with the other used answer book/documents for scoring/processing. Test Administration Reports must be returned to PEM with the test books. Students whose tests are invalidated will be included in the participation count for the school and district when calculating AYP, but a score for the student will not be produced. If a district wants to change to an INV test code during the Accountability Gateway correction window, the district must submit a written request (appeal) to MDE. MDE will refer to the Test Administration Report submitted by the district to PEM. If the INV is not documented for the student on the form, the test code cannot be changed. If the INV is documented appropriately on the Test Administration Report, MDE will change the test code. Absent: The school will attempt to test these students and send in either their completed answer book/documents or an empty answer book/document with identifying information and the ABS (absent) circle filled in. ABS—Absent. Student was absent on the official testing date(s) and was unable to make up the test. This includes students expelled/suspended from school and unable to be tested in another setting. MCA-II and TEAE only: Do not use ABS if a student was administered any part of these tests. ABS should only be used for students who were absent and unable to be tested on any segment of the MCA-II or TEAE. Students who are expelled/suspended from the district and unable to be administered these tests but are still enrolled in the district should have their answer books coded as ABS and returned for scoring/processing.
MS	By Specific Disability: Frequently Asked Questions about English Language Learners (ELL), Mississippi Department of Education December 22, 2003 B11. Do deaf students take this assessment? How is the listening test administered? If through the Home Language Survey, a deaf student is identified as needing English language proficiency assessment, then that student should also participate in the state required English language proficiency assessment. Harcourt Assessment, the developer of the Stanford English Language Proficiency (ELP) Test, recommends not giving students who are deaf and use sign (language) the listening portion of the ELP Test. All other sections (reading, writing, and speaking) could be administered to the student. Please note that these students will receive raw scores/proficiency levels only for the subtests that they took. They will not receive an overall test score.
NY	Exclusion Prohibited: New York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test, NYSESLAT Spring 2006, School Administrator’s Manual Students with Disabilities Please note: All LEP students with disabilities, including those participating in the New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA), must participate in NYSESLAT. Each LEP student with a disability must participate in NYSESLAT. Use the chart in Appendix D to determine which NYSESLAT grade-level assessment to administer for those students with disabilities who, according to their Individualized Education Program (IEP), are ungraded for assessment purposes, including students with disabilities who are participating in NYSAA. In planning for the administration of this test, be sure to consider those LEP students with disabilities who attend programs operated by the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) as well as any other programs located outside the school. Medical Condition/Illness: Illness A student who becomes ill during a session of the NYSESLAT should be excused. When the student is well enough to continue, the student may complete that session of the test, as long as the testing or make-up period has not ended. However, under no circumstance can it be administered later than May 26, 2006. Other unadministered sessions of the test should be administered to the student according to the Directions for Administration as long as the testing or make-up period has not ended. When giving the student a partially completed session of the test, supervise the student closely so that the student does not go back to previously finished questions on the test. Absence: Students Absent on the Test Day Make provisions to administer the test at a later date to all students who were absent when the test was initially given. These students should not be involved in any classroom discussions about the test prior to the time they take it. The make-up date(s) can be any time within the designated testing period. No official make-ups for any subtest may be administered after May 26, 2006.
RI	By Specific Disability and IEP team with or without LEP team: The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled. 3. ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. If an IEP team determines that it is in the best interest of a student to make the test available in braille, the following guidelines are recommended to ensure the integrity of the assessment: a. The student must be braille proficient so as not to confound English language proficiency with proficiency in braille; b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills; d. The student’s responses should be transcribed verbatim by a school staff member into a regular ACCESS for ELLs™ test booklet for scoring; e. The writing assessment should be transcribed verbatim into the test book by a school staff member. 4. Deaf and hard of hearing students, including those for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is their first or primary language, can generally participate in the reading and writing sections of the test with few or no accommodations necessary. Lip-reading with spoken responses for those students who possess these abilities may be possible for the listening and speaking parts of the test. IEP teams should make such determinations on a case by case basis. Translating the listening and speaking prompts into sign language is equivalent to translating into another spoken language, such as Spanish or Arabic, and therefore is prohibited as it changes the construct and invalidates the test.
SC	Absence: Make-ups for absentees are permitted as long as they are within the testing window.
TX	IEP Team with or without LEP team: RPTE Reading Proficiency Tests in English, Test Administrator Manual, Grades 2–12, Spring 2006 A LEP student who receives special education services may be exempted from the English language proficiency assessments required by §101.1001 of this title (relating to English Language Proficiency Assessments) only if the ARD committee determines that these assessments cannot provide a meaningful measure of the student’s annual growth in English language proficiency for reasons associated with the student’s disability. RPTE Eligibility Requirements Except as specified below, LEP students in Grades 3–12, including LEP students with parental denials, are required to take RPTE. ■ LEP Students Served by Special Education. LEP students served by special education for whom RPTE is inappropriate on the basis of their disability should be exempted by the admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee and designated as ARD-exempt from RPTE on the TELPAS answer document. Students who take both RPTE and the State-Developed Alternative Assessment (SDAA II) must take RPTE at their enrolled grade level, regardless of their SDAA II instructional level. §101.1009. Limited English Proficient Students Who Receive Special Education Services. (a) The provisions of this subchapter apply to limited English proficient (LEP) students who receive special education services except as otherwise specified in this section. (b) Decisions regarding the selection of assessments for LEP students who receive special education services shall be made by the admission, review, and dismissal (ARD) committee, which includes a language proficiency assessment committee (LPAC) member to ensure that issues related to the student’s language proficiency are duly considered. (c) A LEP student who receives special education services may be exempted from the English language proficiency assessments required by §101.1001 of this title (relating to English Language Proficiency Assessments) only if the ARD committee determines that these assessments cannot provide a meaningful measure of the student’s annual growth in English language proficiency for reasons associated with the student’s disability. §101.1007. Limited English Proficient Students at Grades Other Than the Exit Level. (d) A LEP student whose parent or guardian has declined the services required by the Texas Education Code, Chapter 29, Subchapter B, is not eligible for an exemption under subsection (b) of this section. The student shall take the assessments of academic skills in English and the English language proficiency assessments required by §101.1001 of this title (relating to English Language Proficiency Assessments).
TX	By Specific Disability: Please note that no braille or large-print version of the Grade 2 field test will be available. Absence: Test Schedule Each district is responsible for developing a local schedule to administer RPTE and TOP in the designated four-week testing window. A district may conduct more than one RPTE test session during this time. Districts should make every effort to provide make-up administrations for students who are absent on their scheduled day of testing. Your campus coordinator will inform you of the RPTE test schedule. If a student is absent on the day of testing but is ARD-exempt or a second semester immigrant who is a non-English reader, the student’s score code must be marked "X" or "N," not "A." A = Absent N = Non-English reader who enrolled in U.S. schools for the first time in the second semester of the 2005–2006 school year, as determined by an LPAC and documented in the student’s permanent record file X = Exempt-ARD: Student is ARD-exempt from RPTE on the basis of the student’s disability, as determined by an ARD committee and documented in the student’s individualized education program, according to 19 TAC §101.1009(c). The 2006 RPTE must be administered during the testing window specified in the calendar of events. Every effort should be made to give a make-up test to students who are absent on their scheduled day of testing. Medical Condition/Illness: The decision to exempt the student must be made on the basis of the appropriateness of RPTE for the student. O = Other, such as test administration irregularity or illness during testing S = Test to be scored The 2006 RPTE must be administered during the testing window specified in the calendar of events. Every effort should be made to give a make-up test to students who are absent on their scheduled day of testing.
VA	IEP Team with or without LEP Team: TESTING MEMO NO. 540, February 17, 2006 The attached Checklist for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities may be used to meet the requirements of evaluating and reporting English language progress and proficiency for certain K-12 LEP students as required under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This individual checklist should be used only for those LEP students with significant cognitive disabilities who the IEP team or school-based LEP committee has determined cannot take the Stanford English Language Proficiency (SELP) Test for the 2005-2006 school year. Medical Condition/Illness, Student Refusal, Disruptive Behavior, Absence, IEP Team with or without LEP team: Spring 2006, VIRGINIA STANFORD ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY TEST, TEST IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL for the Division Director of Testing and School Test Coordinators Section Z—Testing Status Following the completion of make-up testing, only an Examiner or another designated adult is to complete this section to explain why a student did not take one or more of the required SELP subtests. (The testing status codes are defined in Table 5-4.) Table 5-4. Testing Status Coding Grid Circle Number If the LEP Student … 1= Absent Missed the regular and the make-up testing sessions. 2= IEP or 504 Management Plan Complete only if instructed to do so by your DDOT/STC. 3= Limited English Proficient (LEP) Do not complete (no exemptions allowed) 4= Medical Emergency Did not take the SELP Test because of a medical emergency. 5= Refusal/Disruptive Refused to take SELP Test or was too disruptive during testing. 6= Alternate Form Used for Testing Irregularity Complete only with authorization from the Virginia Department of Education. 7= Student Cheated Complete only if instructed to do so by your DDOT/STC if it is determined that a student cheated. 8= Other Complete Circle 8 only with authorization from the Virginia Department of Education. 9= Other Complete Circle 9 only with authorization from the Virginia Department of Education. 10= Testing Discontinued Complete only if instructed to do so by your DDOT/STC if it is determined during testing that a student has minimum English skills. 11= SELP Reading Subtest Scores to be used for Accreditation Complete only if instructed to do so by your DDOT/STC (grades 3 through 8). 12= Other Complete Circle 12 only with authorization from the Virginia Department of Education. Absence and Medical Condition/Illness: Students who are eligible for this category are those who are absent for the entire testing window due to hospitalization or serious illness as well as those who become ill while testing and who are then absent because of illness during the make-up period. Significant medical emergencies must be documented by a medical doctor. This documentation must be maintained locally in the division files. By specific Disability: Braille test/braille answer document and large-print test marked as not available in special test accommodation code sheet.
VT	By Specific Disability and IEP team with or without LEP team: The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled. 3. ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. If an IEP team determines that it is in the best interest of a student to make the test available in braille, the following guidelines are recommended to ensure the integrity of the assessment: a. The student must be braille proficient so as not to confound English language proficiency with proficiency in braille; b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills; d. The student’s responses should be transcribed verbatim by a school staff member into a regular ACCESS for ELLs™ test booklet for scoring; e. The writing assessment should be transcribed verbatim into the test book by a school staff member. 4. Deaf and hard of hearing students, including those for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is their first or primary language, can generally participate in the reading and writing sections of the test with few or no accommodations necessary. Lip-reading with spoken responses for those students who possess these abilities may be possible for the listening and speaking parts of the test. IEP teams should make such determinations on a case by case basis. Translating the listening and speaking prompts into sign language is equivalent to translating into another spoken language, such as Spanish or Arabic, and therefore is prohibited as it changes the construct and invalidates the test.
WA	Absence, Student Refusal, and Parent Exemption: If an enrolled student was not tested, first make certain that all of the information on the back cover of the test booklet is completed for that student and then indicate in Box 11 follows: ABS (Excused) The student was absent for the entire testing window, and no makeup could be scheduled. Student met the district criteria for an "excused absence." ABS (Unexcused) The student was absent for an entire testing window, and no makeup could be scheduled. REF The student refused to participate in the testing, or the student’s parent or guardian refused to allow the student to be tested. For any refusal, a written acknowledgement from the parent (or student, if of majority age) must be secured for the student’s file. If a written acknowledgment cannot be obtained, the school should document the attempt to obtain such information. By Specific Disability: Order large print editions of the Washington Language Proficiency Test (WLPT-II) on Harcourt Spectrum® Web site. No braille additions available.
WI	By Specific Disability and IEP team with or without LEP team: The WIDA Consortium encourages the participation of all English language learners in the ACCESS for ELLs™ testing program and feels that it is an appropriate assessment for all but the most severely disabled. 3. ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. If an IEP team determines that it is in the best interest of a student to make the test available in braille, the following guidelines are recommended to ensure the integrity of the assessment: a. The student must be braille proficient so as not to confound English language proficiency with proficiency in braille; b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills; d. The student’s responses should be transcribed verbatim by a school staff member into a regular ACCESS for ELLs™ test booklet for scoring; e. The writing assessment should be transcribed verbatim into the test book by a school staff member. 4. Deaf and hard of hearing students, including those for whom American Sign Language (ASL) is their first or primary language, can generally participate in the reading and writing sections of the test with few or no accommodations necessary. Lip-reading with spoken responses for those students who possess these abilities may be possible for the listening and speaking parts of the test. IEP teams should make such determinations on a case by case basis. Translating the listening and speaking prompts into sign language is equivalent to translating into another spoken language, such as Spanish or Arabic, and therefore is prohibited as it changes the construct and invalidates the test.
WV	Absence: Make-ups for absentees are permitted as long as they are within the testing window.

Table B-5a. Accommodation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Guide the Decision Making Process for Using Accommodations During Statewide English Language Proficiency Assessment

State	IEP team, 504, or ELP team decision	Used for Classroom and Instruction	Length of Time Accommoda-tion Has Been Used	Maintains the Validity of the Test and Resulting Scores	Individual Student Needs/Characteristics	Purpose/ Nature of the Assessment	Contact State Department of Education	Other¹
AK	X	X	X	X*	X		X	X
AL	X	X			X	X	X²
AZ	X	X*		X*	X*		X	X
CA	X	X		X	X	X³	X²	X
CO	X	X*		X	X		X	X
DE	X	X		X*	X*	X³		X
GA	X	X		X*	X*	X³		X
IA	X	X		X*	X*	X⁴*		X
ID	X			X*	X*	X^4*		X
IL	X	X		X*	X*	X³		X
MA	X			X		X⁴		X
ME	X*			X*	X	X³		X
MI	X			X*	X	X⁴		X
MN	X	X*		X*	X*	X^4,5	X*	X
NM	X			X	X*	X*	X²	X
NY	X			X*	X*	X⁶	X	X
OR		X		X	X	X⁴	X*	X
RI	X	X		X*	X*	X³		X
SC	X	X		X*	X*	X⁴*		X
TN	X
TX	X	X		X	X*			X
VA	X				X*	X⁴*
VT	X	X		X*	X*	X³		X
WA	X	X*		X	X	X⁴		X
WI	X	X		X*	X*	X³		X
WV	X	X		X*	X*	X⁴*		X
Total	25	18	1	23	24	21	9	23

^{1See Table B-5b
for descriptions of "other"
accommodations policy variables.
^{2Contacting state
department was recommended only in the
context of inquiring about other
accommodations not yet named in state
materials.
^{3 State addresses
whether each accommodation is allowed
for each skill area.
^{4 State addresses
one or more accommodations by skill
area(s).
^{5 Minnesota’s
document only specifies accommodations
for the Test of Emerging Academic
English (TEAE) which is the reading and
writing assessment and does not mention
the Solom test that measures oral and
listening skills.
^{6 The
accommodation addressed is linked to a
student’s need for a specific skill area
by how the test is administered (i.e.,
In the Listening subtest, which is
ordinarily presented to students by
playing a prerecorded CD, passages may
be signed using American Sign Language (ASL)
to hearing-impaired students who know
ASL because lip reading is not
possible.)
* See Table B-5c for
additional information about the
variable.}}}}}}

Table B-5b. Specifications and Descriptions of "Other" Accommodation Policy Variables That Can Be Used to Guide the Decision Making Process for Using Accommodations During Statewide Assessment

State	Specifications of Other Accommodations Policy Variables
AK	Before rejecting an adaptation for security reasons, an IEP or 504 team member or other school or district official should consult with the department. In special cases, security can be bolstered to accommodate special needs. The Flexible Scheduling Terms of Agreement form (05-05-030) must be reviewed with the student and parents before administration. The form with the signatures from all involved parties must be sent or faxed to the department (907-465-8400) before testing. Test administrators must document how security will be maintained (e.g., testing location, testing dates, pages to be completed, and storage procedures to maintain security). The required Flexible Scheduling Application form (05-05-029) along with documentation and proof showing the student cannot finish one subtest in one day, must be sent or faxed to the department for review and confirmation prior to testing (907-465-8400). The Participation Guidelines for Alaska Students in State Assessments should be referenced for state-approved accommodations at http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/assessment/elp.html page 13, Table 2.
AZ	Students identified as English Language Learners (all LEP students and those who have been FEP for two or fewer years) may only be considered for standard accommodations. Does the student require an alternate assessment? Alternate assessments are intended for a very small number of students with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the traditional assessment with standard or alternate accommodations. It is necessary to state clearly what all students are to know and be able to do before determining whether there is a need for a specific accommodation (standard or alternate). It is important to re-consider on an annual basis the types of accommodations (standard or alternate) that are used for students, particularly as they gain more skills. Students may choose not to use the accommodation(s). Only the verbal directions stated by the Test Administrator and the written directions that the student is expected to read may be orally translated into the student’s native language. For translations, students must request the translation.
CA	Review state and federal regulations. (i.e., Title 5 California Code of Regulations, CELDT; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 [IDEIA]; and the No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act of 2001).
DE	ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills.
GA	ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills.
IA	Accommodations in the administration procedures for ELDA are allowable provided that they are specified in a student’s IEP or 504 plan and provided for the ELDA. Any accommodations for an individual must be specified before the student takes the assessment and must be documented in the student’s IEP. Contact your District Coordinator for additional state guidelines on accommodations for the ELDA. If a student with disabilities takes the ELDA, the administration of the assessment should be under standardized assessment conditions. Only those accommodations listed or specifically identified in the student’s IEP or 504 plan may be provided. Braille and large print versions of Reading and Writing ELDA are available, Contact your District Coordinator for additional state guidelines on ELDA accommodations. Accommodations in the administration procedures of ELDA are allowable if they are specified in student’s IEP or 504 plan and provided for ELDA.
ID	Accommodations should only be used when absolutely necessary. For a student who reads questions aloud to self they must also take the test in a separate room. The IELA is available in braille and Large Print. A copy of the Listening Test Script is available and may be ordered using the IELA Test.
IL	ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills;
MA	Since the following accommodations are not available for MEPA-R/W tests, students who need these accommodations are not required to participate: Braille (accommodation 12), electronic text reader (accommodations 18 and 28) (In this case, teams may consider whether a different accommodation, such as reading the test aloud, would be appropriate.)
ME	Following list of accommodations should not be offered to ELLs taking ACCESS for ELLs™, unless an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) team has determined that the accommodation is absolutely necessary for a particular student and that not providing the accommodation in question would be a violation of the student’s legal rights. The IEP team should be aware of the potential of these accommodations to invalidate the scores on ACCESS for ELLs™.These are: Repeating questions (listening section), Breaks within sections, except as these are part of the standard adminstration procedures (breaks between sections are not controlled), Orally read test questions (other than listening section) or audiotape test questions , Read, paraphrase or simplify test directions, Teacher uses highlighters or any similar device to distinguish words or key phrases within text ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille from WIDA. A braille version is not available because WIDA does not provide a braille translation. WIDA discourages local educators from translating the reading and writing sections to braille for these same reasons, but it does not prohibit this, should the IEP team decide it is in the student’s best interest to do so. WIDA will provide a large print edition of ACCESS for ELLs™ upon timely request when completing on-line orders for students who qualify for this accommodation.
MI	The summary table of assessment accommodations is to be used by educators as a reference to determine if an assessment accommodation, that has been determined appropriate for the student, is a standard or nonstandard accommodation for the MEAS, or is permitted or not permitted for the NAEP, MME, and English language learners. It is not to be used as a checklist for determining what assessment accommodations should be used for a student.
MN	Accommodations are not available for general education students except when an injury prevents normal responding (see Tables 6 and 7 for specifics). If a practice is not listed below, it is considered an accommodation, not a standardized practice, and is not allowed for general education students. Each school must review a student’s progress and determine needed interventions and accommodations. Personnel designated to determine appropriate accommodations may include the following: The student’s bilingual or English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher; The ELL program coordinator; The student’s other classroom teachers; Test examiners and school test coordinators; The school principal and counselor; The student’s parent(s) or guardian(s), when appropriate; and the student, when appropriate. The school should consider the following criteria when making decisions about appropriate accommodations: Annual review of the student’s progress in attaining English language proficiency; The student’s current English language proficiency level; The student’s experience and length of time in U.S. schools; The student’s expected date for exiting the ELL program; The student’s familiarity with using the accommodations in instruction and assessment; The primary language of instruction in the content area, and the length of time that the student has received instruction in that language; The student’s grade level; and Other school- or district-level related data. Whatever the accommodation provided to a student, test security may not be compromised. If the IEP team is in doubt, contact mde.testing@state.mn.us or the contact person under Accommodations at the front of this manual, The teams can choose accommodations from those with a bullet in the IEP or 504 Plan column in Table 6. Eligibility of LEP students for testing accommodations is determined by a local district process (Minn. Rule 3501.0100). Each local district must establish a process to determine an appropriate course of action for testing students whose first language is not English. District personnel, teachers of LEP students and their parents must be involved in establishing this process. Districts are encouraged to establish a committee that is representative of their specific LEP populations. Districts are also encouraged to provide translators, if necessary, to facilitate the involvement of its committee members. There are some accommodations that can be used together and others that should not or cannot be used together. Some examples of accommodations codes that are not compatible are a braille book and a Large Print test book, a math MCA-II script and a math MCA-II script read on a CD, or a Spanish version of the math BST and a large print version. When using accommodations that involve a translation or large print, make sure that they are compatible and that you fill in the answer book/document accommodation codes correctly.
NM	For other unlisted accommodations (contact PED)
NY	Students Who Incur Disabilities Shortly Before Test Administration Principals may provide accommodations when testing general education students who have or incur an injury (e.g., a broken arm) or experience the onset of a short- or long-term disability (e.g., epilepsy) that is sustained or diagnosed within 30 days prior to the administration of State assessments. In such cases, when sufficient time is not available for the development of an IEP or a Section 504 Accommodation Plan (504 Plan), principals may authorize certain accommodations that will not significantly change the skills being tested. These accommodations are limited to: administering the test in a special location, recording the student’s answers in any manner, reading the test to students (this accommodation may be authorized only for students whose vision is impaired and is not permitted for the Reading subtest for any student.) Eligibility for such accommodations is based on the principal’s professional discretion, but the principal may confer with members of the Committee on Special Education (CSE) or with other school personnel in making such a determination. Prior permission need not be obtained from the Department to authorize testing accommodations for general education students. However, a full written report concerning each authorization must be faxed to the Office of State Assessment at 518-402-5596. The report must be on school letterhead, must be signed by the principal, and must include the following information: The name of the student, The title of the test, A brief description of the student’s injury or disability, A listing of accommodations that were authorized by the principal.
OR	Allowable accommodations in the following boxes are defined by the student identifying his or her needs, and selecting and/or creating a tool, rather than it being selected by an adult. For example, the student identifies the misspelled words in his writing and locates an appropriate reference to correct the spelling or a student creates a graphic organizer rather than the adult providing or suggesting a particular graphic organizer. Regarding magnification devices, other accommodations may need to be used (e.g., separate setting or extended time) to implement this accommodation.
RI	ACCESS for ELLs™ is not available in braille at this time. b. Braille graphics must be included as this is a graphic dependent test; and c. If the braille graphics are also verbally described by the test administrator, such descriptions should be made in the student’s native language so as not to confound with English language listening skills;
SC	Accommodations in the administration procedures for ELDA are allowable provided that they are specified in a student’s IEP or 504 plan and provided for the ELDA. Any accommodations for an individual must be specified before the student takes the assessment and must be documented in the student’s IEP. Contact your District Coordinator for additional state guidelines on accommodations for the ELDA. If a student with disabilities takes the ELDA, the administration of the assessment should be under standardized assessment conditions. Only those accommodations listed or specifically identified in the student’s IEP or 504 plan may be provided. Braille and large print versions of Reading and Writing ELDA are available, Contact your District Coordinator for additional state guidelines on ELDA accommodations. Accommodations in the administration procedures of ELDA are allowable if they are specified in student’s IEP or 504 plan and provided for ELDA.
TX	Contact your campus coordinator to determine whether a student is eligible for a particular testing accommodation. No braille tests are available. Highlighters and colored pencils may not be used in the Grades 2 and 3 RPTE scorable test booklets except as follows: A student served by special education may use a highlighter in the scorable test booklet if the student’s IEP requires the use of a highlighter. You may allow examinees to take brief breaks in the testing room during a test session. However,