Synthesis Report 67

States’ Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) in 2007

Synthesis Report 67

Sheryl S. Lazarus, Martha L. Thurlow, Laurene L. Christensen, & Damien Cormier

December 2007

Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Christensen, L. L., & Cormier, D. (2007). States’ alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2007 (Synthesis Report 67). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Overview

Process Used to Find Information About States’ AA-MAS

Results

Discussion

References

Appendix A: State Documents Used in Analysis

Appendix B: AA-MAS Characteristics by State

Executive Summary

In April 2007, No Child Left Behind regulations were finalized that gave states the option to develop an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). This assessment option is for a small group of students with disabilities who can make significant progress, but who may not reach grade-level achievement within the time period covered by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2007). Prior to the finalization of this regulation a few states had developed, or were developing, an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS—though none had yet been through the U.S. Department of Education’s peer review process. This study compiles and summarizes publicly available information about these assessments.

In July 2007 five states—Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma—had an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS. In addition to these states, Maryland had information on its state Web site about an AA-MAS that was under development and designated to be implemented during the 2008-09 school year at the earliest. Most states with this assessment option used a multiple-choice test; sometimes, there was also a writing prompt or items that required a constructed response. One state had a portfolio assessment.

The eligibility criteria for the AA-MAS differed across states, but all states required the student to have an IEP. Other criteria that many states included were: decision not based on categorical label; student does not have significant cognitive disabilities; student performance level is not due to excessive absences or to social, cultural, environmental, or economic factors; and student is learning grade-level content.

States’ AA-MAS’s differed in a number of ways from their regular assessments. For the AA-MAS, some states removed a distractor, had fewer items, had shorter passages, or used simplified language. States often incorporated some accommodations into the design of the AA-MAS. The ones mostly frequently incorporated were larger font size and fewer items per page.

Overview

Federal legislation requires that all students, including students with disabilities, be included in all state and district-level accountability systems. Many students can take the regular assessment with or without accommodations, but some students with disabilities need alternate ways to access assessments. For the past several years, states have had alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. In April 2007 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) regulations on modified achievement standards were finalized. These regulations were designed to give states additional flexibility.

As described in the regulations (U.S. Department of Education, 2007), states have the option of providing an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). Students who participate in this assessment may be from any disability category. Their progress to date, in response to appropriate instruction, must be such that the student is unlikely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the IEP. The regulations require that students who participate in this option have access to grade-level content. Several states had an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards in place, or in development, prior to the regulations that they believe meet the criteria of an AA-MAS—even though none have yet been through the peer review process used by the U.S. Department of Education to determine whether the assessment fulfills the necessary requirements for the state to receive Federal funds.

The purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of the characteristics of the AA-MAS in these states at a time shortly after the April 2007 regulations were finalized. Because these states developed their assessments prior to the final regulations, some of the characteristics of these early AA-MAS may not fully comply with the regulations. We did not attempt to determine the degree to which these assessments meet the Federal requirements. Those determinations will be made through the official peer review process that requires states to demonstrate that their assessment systems used for accountability purposes meet certain criteria. To prepare for this peer review process, states compile a set of relevant materials and evidence (e.g., state statutes and regulations, test administrator manuals, assessment reports, etc.). The peer reviewers examine this evidence under the guidance of a U.S. Department of Education staff member. The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education uses the peer reviewers’ comments to make decisions about approval of a state’s assessment system.

The landscape of AA-MAS development is changing rapidly, and we anticipate that additional states may have an AA-MAS soon. It is possible that some other states have a version of an AA-MAS that is not yet public. Some states may be considering the development of an AA-MAS; others may be field testing items. This study addressed only those AA-MAS for which public information was available in July 2007.

Specific questions that we sought to answer in this study included:

1. In July 2007 which states either had an assessment that they considered to be AA-MAS or had information about an AA-MAS in development on their Web site?

2. What were the characteristics of these assessments?

3. What were the eligibility criteria for students to qualify to participate in this assessment option?

Process Used to Find Information About States’ AA-MAS

This report summarizes publicly available information about the characteristics of the AA-MAS for states that either had one in place in July 2007 or had information about an AA-MAS in development on the state Web site in July 2007. Data were gathered from state Web sites as well as from presentations at the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO) Large-Scale Assessment Conference in Nashville, Tennessee in June 2007. Several states made presentations at the conference on their AA-MAS and their PowerPoint slide handouts were used as a data source. Appendix A contains a list of the documents used to compile the information in this report. AA-MAS information was collected for each state and placed into a state profile. The profiles were then e-mailed to each state in September 2007. States were asked to verify the information; if the profile contained inaccurate information, states were permitted to revise their profiles. We then compiled and summarized the verified information in this report.

Results

As indicated in Table 1, five states—Kansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Oklahoma—had an assessment that they considered to be an AA-MAS. In addition to these states, Maryland had information on its Web site about an AA-MAS under development. Some states had developed their AA-MAS for more grades and content areas than others. For example, grade 4 was the earliest grade at which the LAA 2 (LEAP Alternate Assessment, Level 2) in Louisiana was available; the other five states had an AA-MAS for at least some content areas, starting in Grade 3.

The six states that had, or are developing, an assessment that they believed to be an AA-MAS, differ from one another. As shown in Figure 1, one state—North Dakota—had a portfolio assessment, while the other five states had a multiple-choice assessment. One state’s assessment also included some constructed responses; two states had a writing prompt. Additional details about the types of assessments are available in Appendix B in Table B-1.

Table 1. AA-MAS Name, Content Areas, and Grade Described by State

State	Assessment Name	Content Areas/ Grades
Kansas	KAMM (Kansas Assessment of Multiple Measures)	Reading (3-8; once in HS); Math (3-8; once in HS); Writing (5,8, once in HS); History/Gov (6, 8, once in HS); Science (4,7, once in HS)
Louisiana	LAA2 (LEAP Alternate Assessment, Level 2)	English (Grades 4-10); Math (Grades 4-10); Science (Grades 4, 8 and 11); Social Studies (Grades 4,8,11)
Maryland¹	Mod-MSA (Modified Maryland School Assessment) and Mod-HSA (Modified High School Assessment)	Reading/ELA (3-8, HS); Mathematics (3-8, HS)
North Carolina	NCEXTEND2	Reading (Grades 3-8); Math (Grades 3-8); Science (Grades 5 and 8)
North Dakota	North Dakota Alternate Assessment Aligned to North Dakota Content Standards for Students with Persistent Cognitive Disabilities	Reading (3-8, 11); Math (3-8,11); Science (4,8,11)
Oklahoma	CARG-M (CARG=Curriculum Access Resource Guide)	ELA/Reading (Grades 3-8, HS); Math (Grades 3-8, HS); Science (Grades 5 and 8)

¹ Still under development. Maryland planned to implement its AA-MAS in 2008-09 at the earliest.

Figure 1. Number of States with Selected Assessment Types and Question Characteristics

States with an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS had eligibility criteria that IEP teams use to determine which students qualify to participate in this assessment option. Some states had developed decision trees, while others had checklists or descriptions of the eligibility criteria. Table 2 shows that all six states in this study required that a student have an IEP to be a candidate for this assessment option. Other frequently listed criteria included: student multiple years behind grade level expectations (n=4); not based on student’s categorical label (n=4); student does not have significant cognitive disabilities (n=4; and not due to student’s excessive absences or to social, cultural, environment, or economic factors (n=4).

Table 2. Number of States with Selected Eligibility Criteria¹

Criteria	Number of States
Student has IEP	6
Student’s performance multiple years behind grade level expectations	4
Participation decision not based on student’s categorical label	4
Student does not have significant cognitive disabilities	4
Student’s performance not due to excessive absences or to social, cultural, environmental, or economic factors	4
Student learning grade level content	3
Student previously scored at unsatisfactory level on state assessment	2
Participation decision not based on student’s placement setting	2

^{1In addition to
the eligibility criteria listed in this
table, 5 states have other criteria. See
Table B-2a for details about these other
criteria.}

Half of the states (n=3) required that the student must be learning grade-level content, while fewer states required that a student had previously scored at an unsatisfactory level on the state assessment (n=2) or that the decision not be based on student’s placement setting (n=2). Because this group of states had an assessment in place or in development prior to the April 2007 regulation, some states’ criteria may have differed from regulatory requirements. Additional details about the states’ eligibility criteria are available in Appendix B in Tables B-2 and B-2a.

Design Changes

The assessments that states consider to be an AA-MAS differed in a number of ways from the states’ regular assessments. The states made a number of design changes for the AA-MAS. As indicated in Figure 2, four states removed a distractor. For example, if multiple-choice questions on a state’s regular assessment had four possible answer options, then the AA-MAS would have three possibilities. Most states also simplified the language (n=4) and had fewer items (n=4) on the AA-MAS than on the state’s regular assessment. Three states had shorter reading passages, while one state segmented reading passages so that questions directly followed the section of the passage to which they referred. Examples of other design changes included shorter responses to the writing prompt and the requirement that all of the items be Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels 1 or 2. The latter requirement refers to methodologies that can be used to organize the level of understanding required for various topics or items. The higher the level, the deeper the level of understanding needed. Table B-3 in Appendix B contains state specific information as well as details about the other changes.

Figure 2. Selected Design Changes in States’ AA-MAS

Accommodations

Some states had incorporated features that would be considered an accommodation on the state’s regular assessment into the design of the assessment considered by the state to be an AA-MAS (see Figure 3). Several states had fewer items per page (n=3). In some states the regular math assessment had one or more sections where the calculator may not be used except if a student has that accommodation listed on the IEP. Two such states incorporated the use of a calculator into the AA-MAS assessment design. Other accommodations incorporated into the assessment design included larger font size (n=3), breaks as needed (n=2), and key text underlined or bolded (n=1). More detailed state specific information about accommodations incorporated into the design of these assessments is presented in Appendix B, Table B-4.

Figure 3. Accommodations Incorporated into AA-MAS

Discussion

In July 2007 six states had an assessment either in place or in development that they considered to be an AA-MAS, but none had as of yet gone through the U.S. Department of Education’s peer review process. This study compiled and summarized information about these assessments. Key findings included:

For its AA-MAS, most states had multiple-choice test formats. Sometimes, there was also a writing prompt or items that required a constructed response. One state had a portfolio assessment.

The eligibility criteria for the AA-MAS differed across states, but in all states students were required to have an IEP to qualify for this assessment option. Other criteria that many states had included the following: decision cannot be based on a categorical label; student does not have significant cognitive disabilities; student’s low performance is not due to excessive absences or to social, cultural, environmental, or economic factors; and student is learning grade-level content.

States’ AA-MASs differed in a number of ways from their regular assessments. For the AA-MAS, some states removed a distractor, had fewer items on the AA-MAS, had shorter passages, or used simplified language.

States often incorporated some accommodations into the design of their AA-MASs. The ones mostly frequently incorporated were larger font size and fewer items per page.

Now that the regulations for alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards are final, more states are considering the development of an AA-MAS. The population of students for whom this policy applies is a small group of students with disabilities who can make significant progress, but who may not reach grade-level achievement within the time frame covered by their IEP (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2007).

Important considerations for states that are exploring this option include consideration of how to identify who the students are that might participate in this option, how the students access grade-level content, and how the students show what they know (National Center on Educational Outcomes, 2007). According to Marion (2007), states need to be "prepared to build a defensible validity argument in support of this assessment and in particular should be prepared to address validity issues related to potential unintended negative consequences as a result of implementing this assessment (e.g., lower expectations)" (p. 5). For example, states need to consider, "How will the inclusion of the AA-MAS as part of the state’s assessment system lead to better instructional and curricular opportunities for these students? Whatever benefit (e.g., positive consequential evidence) for these students should be weighed against potential benefits from other approaches such as more appropriate accommodations and especially targeted instructional interventions" (p. 5).

In this report we make no evaluative comments about the various approaches to AA-MAS that states have taken. For information about relevant research, refer to the NCEO Web. This report provides information about the characteristics of some of the first state assessments that may be an AA-MAS, but we anticipate that this report is merely the first snapshot of a rapidly changing landscape since it is anticipated that more states will develop an AA-MAS.

References

Marion, S. (2007, July 26). A technical design and documentation workbook for assessments based on modified achievement standards. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/Teleconferences/AAMASteleconferences/AAMASworkbook.pdf

National Center on Educational Outcomes (2007). Identifying students with disabilities who are eligible to take an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Author. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/Teleconferences/AAMASteleconferences/AAMASIdentifying%20Students.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (2007, April 9). Final Rule 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300: Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal Register. 72(67), Washington DC: Author. Retrieved September 12, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/2percentReg/FederalRegApril9TwoPercent.pdf

Appendix A: State Documents Used in Analysis

State documents and presentations used in the analysis of states’ alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards.

Kansas	Kansas State Department of Education. (2007, January). Accommodations Manual: How to Select, Administer and Evaluate Accommodations for Instruction and Assessment. Topeka: author. Retrieved from: http://www.kansped.org/ksde/assmts/ksgen/AccommMan07.pdf on July 16, 2007. Kansas State Department of Education. (2006, September). Questions about the 2006-2007 Kansas Assessment of Modified Measures-KAMM. Topeka: Author. Retrieved from www.kansped.org/ksde/assmts/kamm/kammfaq.pdf on July 16, 2007.
Louisiana	Louisiana Department of Education (2006, February). LAA2 (LEAP Alternate Assessment, Level 2): Preliminary Assessment Guide, English Language Arts and Mathematics-Grades 4,8,10, Science and Social Studies-Grade 11. Retrieved from http://www.doe.la.us/de/uploads/8524.pdf on July 3, 2007. Louisiana Department of Education (No date). Louisiana Educational Assessment Program Guidelines for Selecting Test Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Baton Rouge: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/1615.pdf on July 12, 2007. Louisiana Department of Education. (No date). Special Populations and Accommodations for LEAP and GEE. Baton Rouge: Author. Retrieved from: https://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/8816.pdf on July 12, 2007. Norton, S. (2007). Louisiana’s Two Alternate Assessments. Presentation at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Large Scale Assessment Conference, Nashville TN, June 17-20.
Maryland	Maryland State Department of Education. (2006, October 1). 2006-2007 Maryland Accommodations Manual: A Guide to Selecting, Administering, and Evaluating the Use of Accommodations for Instruction and Assessment. Baltimore: Author. Retrieved from http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/NR/rdonlyres/840EFBB6-CD7D-404E-8A77-E978F6D508AA/11347/MDAccommodationsManual.pdf on July 12, 2007.
North Carolina	Bazamore, M. (2007). Assessing Students with Disabilities AA-MAS Lessons Learned—A North Carolina Perspective. Presentation at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Large Scale Assessment Conference, Nashville TN, June 17-20. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/content/PDFs/159%2DMildred%20Bazemore.pdf on July 12, 2007. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services. (2006, January 6). NCExtend2 EOG. (Reading and Math Grades 3-8, Science 5 and 8, and Writing Grades 4 and 7). Raleigh: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/ncextend2eligibilitycriteria.pdf on July 5, 2007. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services. (2007, Feb.) School Test Coordinator’s Manual. Raleigh: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/accountability/policyoperations/stcHandbook.pdf on July 16, 2007. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of Accountability Services. (2005). Testing Students with Disabilities. Raleigh: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/accountability/testing/alternate/disabilities/testingstudents.pdf on July 16, 2007.
North Dakota	North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. (2006). 2006-2007 North Dakota Alternate Assessment (NDAA)-Electronic Version. Bismarck: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/SPECED/resource/alternate/ on July 12, 2007.
Oklahoma	Garrett, S. (2007). Oklahoma Modified Alternate Assessment Program (OMAAP). Oklahoma City: Oklahoma State Department of Education, Office of Accountability and Assessment and Special Education Services. Retrieved from http://www.sde.state.ok.us/home/defaultns.html on July 16, 2007. Oklahoma State Department of Education. (2006). Accommodations for Students on an IEP or 504 Plan: Oklahoma Core Curriculum Test (2006-2007) Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and End-of-Instruction Writing/Multiple Choice Assessments. Oklahoma City: Author. Retrieved from http://se.sde.state.ok.us/ses/assessment/accommodations2006.pdf on July 16, 2007. Oklahoma Department of Education. (2006, Nov. 27). Criteria checklist for Oklahoma’s alternate assessments (Oklahoma Alternate Assessment Program- OAAP/Portfolio CARG-A and Oklahoma’s Modified Assessment CARG-M). Oklahoma City: Author. Retrieved from http://title3.sde.state.ok.us/studentassessment/06-07/AltAssessFlwcht112706.pdf on July 5, 2007.

Appendix B: AA-MAS Characteristics by State

Table B-1. Assessment Type and Question Characteristics

State	Assessment Type/ Question Characteristics				Additional Comments
State	Portfolio	Multiple Choice	Constructed response (short answer)	Writing Prompt	Additional Comments
Kansas		X
Louisiana		X	X	X	Proficiency levels: 4 levels (Basic, Approaching Basic, Foundational, Pre-foundational) Scaling/alignment with regular assessment: The 4 achievement levels align with the 3 lowest achievement levels of LEAP/GEE (e.g., Basic = Basic; Approaching Basic = Approaching Basic; Unsatisfactory = Foundational and Pre-foundational) School Performance Score (SPS) points: Basic=100; Approaching Basic=75; Foundational=50; Pre-foundational=0
Maryland¹		X			Proficiency Levels: 3 levels (Advanced, Proficient, Basic)
North Carolina		X			Scaling/alignment with regular assessment: Scale not vertical although the regular assessment does make use of a vertical scale.
North Dakota	X				Portfolio assessment
Oklahoma		X		X

^{1 Still under
development. Maryland planned to
implement an AA-MAS in 2008-09 at the
earliest. In addition, specific
accommodations implemented in these
assessment/instructional settings may
include: test items are less complex,
fewer and shorter passages, shorter or
less difficult questions, and fewer
distractors.}

Table B-2. Eligibility Criteria

Criteria	State
Criteria	KS	LA	MD¹	NC	ND	OK
Student has IEP	X	X	X	X	X	X
Student’s performance multiple years behind grade level expectations	X²	X³	X	X
Participation decision not based on student’s categorical label	X	X		X		X
Student does not have significant cognitive disabilities		X	X	X	X⁴
Student’s performance not due to excessive absences or to social, cultural, environmental, or economic factors	X	X		X		X
Student learning grade level content		X	X⁵	X
Student previously scored at unsatisfactory level on state assessment		X⁶	X
Decision not based on placement setting		X		X
Other criteria (see Table B-2a for details)	X	X	X	X	X

^{1Still under
development. Maryland planned to
implement an AA-MAS in 2008-09 at the
earliest.
^{2 KS: Consistently
requires instruction in prerequisite
skills to the grade level indicators
being assessed; despite the provision of
research-based interventions, the
student is not progressing at the rate
expected for grade level; classroom
achievement and performance is
significantly below grade level peers.}}

3 LA: Must be functioning at least 3 grade levels below actual grade in English language arts and/or mathematics.

^{4ND:
Differentiates between significant and
persistent cognitive disabilities.
Students with persistent cognitive
disabilities would participate in the
AA-MAS (e.g., students with significant
cognitive disabilities would participate
in the AA-AAS).
^{5 MD: Requires use
of a modified general curriculum that is
aligned with Maryland Content Standards
for the student’s grade level, but is
modified (reduced amount to learn,
reduced complexity, reduced output);
requires and receives modifications in
instruction (examples include: reduced
complexity of language, paraphrasing of
reading passages, reduced number of test
items, reduced amount of content to
learn, embedded scaffolding for a
written response such as sentence stems,
guided response outline, guided
questioning to generate response,
software such as Co-Writer and Write
Outloud, use of a calculator, and spell
check).
^{6 LA: Not
available in Grade 3 because a
participation criterion is that the
student must score at the unsatisfactory
level on the general assessment.}}}

Table B-2a. Other Eligibility Criteria Specifications

State	Other Criteria Specifications
KS	Student needs significant changes in the complexity and scope of the general standards to show progress in the curriculum: requires intensive specially designed instruction; requires intensive individualized supports; requires extensive instruction. Student needs supports that significantly reduce the complexity or breadth of assessment items: requires differentiated content for classroom assessment; needs to show what know differently; accommodations alone do not allow the student to fully demonstrate knowledge.
LA	May not be determined administratively.
MD¹	The student’s IEP must include goals that are based on academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled. There must be sufficient objective evidence demonstrating that the student is not likely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the school year covered by his/her IEP. For the modified Maryland School Assessment (Mod-MSA), the student requires and receives modified academic achievement standards aligned with Maryland Content Standards for the student’s grade-level during assessment and instruction. For the Modified High School Assessment (Mod-HSA), the student requires and receives modified academic achievement standards aligned with Maryland Content Standards/Core Learning Goals for Algebra and/or English 2 during assessment and instruction; at least three consecutive years of individualized intensive instruction in reading and/or mathematics consistent with his/her IEP; not able to attain proficiency at grade level even with the provisions of accommodations based on documented multiple valid and objective measures of student’s progress (or lack of progress).
NC	Student needs significant changes in the complexity and scope of the general standards to show progress in the curriculum; Requires intensive specially designed instruction; Requires intensive individualized supports; Requires extensive instruction; Student needs supports that significantly reduce the complexity or breadth of assessment items; Requires differentiated content for classroom assessment; Needs to show what know differently; Accommodations alone do not allow the student to fully demonstrate knowledge.
ND	May not be determined administratively.
OK	At least three consecutive years of individualized intensive instruction in reading and/or mathematics consistent with his/her IEP; not able to attain proficiency at grade level even with accommodations.

^{1Still under
development. Maryland planned to
implement an AA-MAS in 2008-09 at the
earliest.}

Table B-3. Comparison of AA-MAS and Regular Assessment: Design Changes

State	Change
State	Distractor Removed	Fewer Items	Fewer Passages	Segmenting of Passage	Shorter Passages	Simplified Language	Other Design Changes
Kansas	X	X	X		X	X
Louisiana		X	X		X¹		Writing: Shorter response to writing prompt required. Reading: No poetry. Information Resources: Question placed adjacent to the related resources.
Maryland²	X					X
North Carolina	X	X	X		X	X	Writing: grades 4 and 7 use same prompts as regular assessment but scored using modified achievement standards.
North Dakota³
Oklahoma	X	X		X		X	Writing: Simplify writing prompts; superlatives: avoids use of superlatives (e.g., best/better/most), no change, and likely/closest; all items must be DOK Level 1 or 2. Math: display numbers on all sides of perimeter; avoid having both negative and positive answer choices (4 and -4); use grid for area questions; avoid complicated art; avoid items that ask student to redefine their perception of an object (e.g., fold this object along the dotted line). Science: reduce amount of reading; whenever possible use art instead of text; simplify tables/charts by removing irrelevant rows/columns; put box around formulas.

^{1 Only at some grade levels (e.g.,
upper grades).
^{2Still under
development. Maryland planned to
implement an AA-MAS in 2008-09 at the
earliest.
^{3North Dakota has
a portfolio assessment.}}}

Table B-4. AA-MAS Accommodations and Comparison of Accommodations with Regular Assessment, Selected States

State	Assessment Incorporated into AA-MAS Assessment Design					Other Information and Specification Details
State	Breaks as Needed	Calculator	Fewer Items/Page	Key Text Underlined/Bolded	Larger Font Size	Other Information and Specification Details
KS	X	X				Neither the KAMM nor the regular assessment is timed. Accommodations permitted for the KAMM and the regular assessment except: (1) The use of the calculator accommodation on non-calculator portion of regular assessment has scoring implications; (2) Paper/pencil test considered an accommodation for the KAMM (it is an option for the regular assessment); (3) Math tables may be used on all sections of the KAMM (they may only be used on the calculator section of the regular assessment).
LA			X		X	Accommodations permitted for the LAA2 and the regular assessment are the same except for the accommodations incorporated into the LAA2 design. Neither the LAA2 nor the regular assessment is timed. (LA refers to its regular assessment as a general assessment.)
MD¹
NC	X	X	X		X	Accommodations permitted for the NCEXTEND2 and the regular assessment are the same except for the accommodations incorporated into the NCEXTEND2 design.
ND
OK			X	X	X	Neither the CARG-M nor the regular assessment is timed. Accommodations permitted for the CARG-M and the regular assessment are the same except for the accommodations incorporated into the CARG-M design.

1Still under development. Maryland planned to implement an AA-MAS in 2008-09 at the earliest.

Top of page