Participation for Students with Disabilities

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Should all students with disabilities participate in state and district assessments?
2. Who should decide about the participation of students with disabilities in assessments?
3. How should participation decisions be made?
4. How do students with disabilities participate in district and statewide assessments?
5. Why should students who won't do well be put through the emotional stress of taking a state or district assessment?
6. How can students with disabilities participate in assessments if the state or district does not know all of the accommodations needed by the students who take the test?
7. Isn’t it better to exempt from testing those students with mild to moderate disabilities who are in vocational settings where they are not working toward the same academic standards as other students?
   

1. Should all students with disabilities participate in state and district assessments?

All students should be included in educational accountability systems. These systems are based, in part, on educational assessments. Students with disabilities participate in these assessment systems by taking the general assessment or an alternate assessment.

Some students with disabilities who are unable to participate in paper and pencil assessments may participate in alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement standards (AA-GLAS). A small percentage of students with significant cognitive disabilities may participate in a state or district alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). Several states also offer an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS) that may be appropriate for some students. Students who participate in alternate assessments are part of the overall accountability system.

To get an accurate picture of where the educational system's strengths and weaknesses are, schools need to determine how ALL students are doing. Students who are excluded from measurement are excluded from school improvement plans based on that measurement. Unintended effects such as not having access to limited resources to improve schools are important reasons to include ALL students in measurement for accountability. Participation is also important for the students themselves, because raising expectations encourages all students to perform at a higher level. If all students are to benefit from educational reforms, all students must be included.

2. Who should decide about the participation of students with disabilities in assessments?

For students with disabilities who receive special education services, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team makes decisions about participation. States have established criteria to help IEP teams make participation decisions. These teams know the student well, including the student's instructional program and the student's strengths, needs, and other relevant characteristics.

3. How should participation decisions be made?

Start with the premise that all students are going to participate in the accountability system. Expecting that all students are in the accountability system really helps to maximize the participation of students with disabilities. The basis for decisions about participation in assessments should not be the category of a student's disability, the settings in which the student receives instruction, or the percentage of time a student spends in particular classroom settings. Many states have guidelines that help in deciding which assessment option is the best for an individual student.

4. How do students with disabilities participate in district and statewide assessments?

Many students with disabilities will participate in the same way as students without disabilities: they will take regular state or district tests with no accommodations. Other students with disabilities will participate in regular assessments using accommodations. Most students with disabilities can participate in one of these two ways.

Some students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the general assessment may participate in an alternate assessment. Students with significant cognitive disabilities may participate in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Students who are unable to participate in the general assessment, but who can meet grade-level proficiency with good instruction, may best be assessed with an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards. A few states also offer an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards that may be appropriate for some students. Regardless of how students participate in the assessment system, it is important that they are all part of the accountability system−that their scores count.

5. Why should students who won't do well be put through the emotional stress of taking a state or district assessment?

Assessments in standards-based systems serve a number of purposes: instructional planning; measuring school and district performance; providing an indicator for state, district, school, and student accountability.

When the purpose of an assessment is to measure the effectiveness of the school in helping all students reach high standards, then having students participate in the assessment is important WHETHER OR NOT they have had the opportunity to learn those skills. Only by measuring "how well the system is doing" will we clearly identify and then fill the gaps in instructional opportunity that leave some students out.

When the purpose of an assessment is to measure the progress of individual students, or to use the results for decisions about graduation status or promotion, then full participation in the assessment is critical. At the same time, the system must make sure that opportunities to learn to high standards are accessible to ALL students.

If current instructional practices or assessment limitations prevent the student from demonstrating skills in current formats, other measures can be used to validate learning on an individual basis in addition to the assessment scores. For example, an appeals process may be part of this validation of student learning. Eventually limitations should be corrected, and assessments built in line with the elements of universally designed assessments, so that all students can participate and receive meaningful scores.

Working directly with the student and his or her family or guardian is important so that all involved understand the purpose of the assessment, and any concerns can be minimized. IEP teams should receive training and support on this topic. Teachers, parents, and school administrators can help students understand the purpose of assessments and not feel distressed by the testing experience.

6. How can students with disabilities participate in assessments if the state or district does not know all of the accommodations needed by the students who take the test?

The NCEO Web pages on accommodations provide some strategies to address the problem of state or district accommodation guidelines not allowing certain accommodations. See the special topic area on accommodations as well as the NCEO Data Viewer that has information on state policies for accommodations.

All states are working to resolve these issues, as are researchers, test publishers, advocacy groups, and practitioners. Contacting the state or district for advice on individual situations is often a good first step. Also, volunteering to be part of stakeholder groups working on revising current policies is helpful for pushing policies forward.

7. Isn't it better to exempt from testing those students with mild to moderate disabilities who are in vocational settings where they are not working toward the same academic standards as other students?

All students, regardless of educational setting, should have access to grade-level content and be working toward appropriate academic standards. For students who are not working toward academic content and achievement standards, the solution is not to exempt them from testing. Instead the quality of the vocational program should be improved. Where and how students work toward standards can be flexible as long as the standards remain the same; many students with and without disabilities can learn standards-based knowledge and skills more successfully in an applied setting similar to those in many vocational programs. By aligning the instructional opportunities in the applied setting to state or district standards, students are able to learn in a way that fits them well, but with clear expectations that they will master the same standards expected of students in more traditional academic settings. Increasing the rigor and expectations aligned to standards in the vocational curriculum will benefit all students.

For the small number of special education students who are in a curriculum geared toward measurement by an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards, the same solution applies. Resolving "misalignment" between instruction and assessments involves a process. The key is to identify the core content of state content standards that is appropriate for these students, and then align the instructional opportunities to those standards. Exempting students from assessment requirements is not the answer. For more information, see the special topic area on alternate assessment.

Top of page