Including students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems

Martha Thurlow studies how best to include students with disabilities in large-scale assessments—those standardized tests that are widely used to measure both student achievement and effectiveness of educational systems. As director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), a nationally-funded center housed in the College of Education and Human Development, Thurlow has been following the issues involved with including students with disabilities in assessments since the standards-based reform movement began well over a decade ago. NCEO was established in 1990 to provide national leadership in designing and building educational assessments and accountability systems that appropriately monitor educational results for all students, including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency.

Why students with disabilities should be included in assessments

“The exclusion of students with disabilities from assessment systems has several negative effects,” Thurlow says. “Those students who were not included in the accountability system received less attention when the pressure was on to get the best score possible for a school or district.”

It became clear that the educational system had low expectations for this group of students  and believed that these students really could not be taught successfully. In addition, poorly performing general education students were sometimes referred to special education classes for the sole purpose of excluding them from the assessments.

The practice of excluding certain students from the assessment and accountability process inaccurately portrayed the effectiveness of the educational system, resulting in misleading comparisons among districts or states depending on the extent to which students were excluded from the assessments. By including all students in assessments, accurate comparisons can be made and policies can be shaped to improve the education of all students.

What the research shows

Data collected and analyzed at NCEO by Thurlow and her colleagues has shown that students with disabilities can successfully participate in statewide and other assessment systems through accommodations and alternate assessments. Accommodations are changes in testing materials or procedures that give students with disabilities access to the assessment—so they can demonstrate their knowledge and skills instead of the effects of their disabilities. Accommodations can include modifications in presentation (e.g., repeating directions, reading the test out loud, using larger bubbles), response (e.g., marking answers in the book, use of reference aids, pointing at answers), setting (e.g., special lighting, separate room), and timing/scheduling (e.g., extended time, frequent breaks). Essentially, accommodations help to provide a “level playing field.”

Thurlow and others at NCEO study how these accommodations affect test results and what the benefits or drawbacks of using these accommodations are. Studies on the use of accommodations are cataloged at NCEO so that school districts, states, and federal agencies can access information and make informed decisions before implementing testing accommodations.

Alternate assessments are another way to measure performance of students who are unable to participate in general large-scale assessments. According to Thurlow and other researchers, only a small percentage of students with disabilities should participate in alternate assessments.

“There is a potential danger that too many students will be slated to participate in the alternate assessment system,” Thurlow explains. “This decision should not be based on which students are expected to perform poorly on the general education assessment.”

Deciding what criteria to use for determining whether a student should be included in general or alternate assessments, how to determine appropriate standards for alternate assessments, and subsequently, how best to include the results of alternate assessments in accountability systems are all important issues that states need to address. Thurlow and her team at NCEO have taken on the task of researching and synthesizing available information on the different approaches to alternate assessments, and in doing so, have helped to shape policies in many states.

What others say about NCEO

Ken Olsen, director of the Alliance for Systems Change and the Mid-South Regional Resource Center, remarks that “the effectiveness of NCEO is a result of a commitment to being grounded in real issues, an ability to research and synthesize information in clear ways to help understand and address the issues, an openness to the best possible thinking or experts across the country, an eagerness to collaborate on issues of national concern, and finally, a willingness to help target specific problems in specific places.

“The information they provide makes us, a multi-state provider of technical assistance, more grounded in research and better able to convey practical advice to our clients. As a result of NCEO personnel efforts, federal policy is more coherent, state practices are more inclusive, and most importantly, I think children with disabilities and their families are increasingly considered key to school success. NCEO has had a tremendous effect on the field.”

Melodie Freidebach, director of special education for the state of Missouri, says that “Martha and her NCEO colleagues provided thoughtful assistance and guidance to state directors of special education as they have moved to include all students with disabilities in state and district systems of assessment and accountability. Martha is always willing to listen and provide possible solutions, or make connections with others who may be able to assist with many difficult and varied questions.”

Dan Weiner, assessment coordinator for special populations for the Massachusetts Department of Education, says, “The work of Martha Thurlow and her staff at NCEO has been indispensable to myself and my staff at the Massachusetts Department of Education. They have shared their research and insights with me at every opportunity, and have been a valued resource to our department as we have proceeded with development of the alternate assessment and testing policies for students with disabilities. I believe they have helped us become one of the most high-quality, inclusive, and accessible testing programs in the country.”

November 2002