2001 State Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations
NCEO Synthesis Report 46
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
Prepared by:
Martha L. Thurlow, Sheryl Lazarus, Sandra Thompson, and Jennifer Robey
July 2002
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
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. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html
Executive Summary
State assessment systems
continue to evolve as federal requirements change and more and more students are
included in assessment systems. The National Center on Educational Outcomes
(NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state policies on participation in
assessments and accommodations for more than a decade now. The purpose of this
analysis is to update information on these policies last conducted by NCEO in
1999.
The current analysis of states’ 2001 participation and accommodations policies
confirm that states’ policies continue to evolve, although the changes are not
as dramatic as in the past. Among the major findings from this analysis are:
• Participation options beyond the usual three (participation without
accommodations, participation with accommodations, alternate assessment) have
become more evident — generally these are: partial participation, additional
alternate assessments, and out-of-level testing.
• "Emotional anxiety" is noted by many more states than previously as a reason
for students to not participate in assessments.
• Policies for both participation and accommodations are becoming more specific.
This is particularly evident in accommodation policies. These clarifications
sometimes indicate the implications for scores, specifically whether they will
be aggregated with other scores.
• Five states allow accommodations for all students. Additional states allow
some accommodations to be used with all students (generally setting and
scheduling accommodations), and one state allows accommodations to continue to
be used with students who are no longer on IEPs.
• The most controversial accommodations continue to be read aloud, calculator,
and scribe.
Our analyses of state policies and guidelines suggest that states have continued
to adjust their policies to ensure that students with disabilities have
opportunities to participate in statewide assessments, and at the same time to
understand the meaning of the scores from their assessments.
Overview
Statewide assessment systems continue to be a key component of educational
accountability at the federal and state levels. Since all students now must
participate in state assessment systems, there is continued interest in policies
that determine the ways in which students participate (e.g., general assessment
or alternate assessment), and the treatment of accommodations in testing (e.g.,
allowed or not allowed, reported, etc.). Both the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act reauthorized in 1997, and the Title I provisions of the No Child
Left Behind Act reauthorized in 2001, mention participation and accommodations
for students with disabilities (see Table 1).
The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has tracked information on
state participation and accommodation policies for students with disabilities
since 1990, with the most recent analysis examining 1999 policies (Thurlow,
House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000). Each time that NCEO has examined state
policies (1993–Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993; 1995–Thurlow, Scott, &
Ysseldyke, 1995a, b; 1997–Thurlow, Seyfarth, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1997;
1999–Thurlow, House, et al., 2000), there have been significant changes from the
time before.
In the early years, the changes in policies were most often reflected in
increases in number of states with policies–adding states that previously had no
written policies at all, from about 25 in the early 1990s to about 40 states by
the mid-1990s. Toward the end of the 1990s, all states had policies in place,
but changes continued. Most of these changes in policies reflected alterations
in the specifics of participation criteria or in the accommodations that were
listed as appropriate or not appropriate for students to use in state testing.
These types of changes are expected to continue as states focus on increasing
the participation of students with disabilities in their assessments.
Table 1. Excepts of Federal Laws Related to Participation and Accommodation
|
"the
participation in such assessments of all students" (Section 1111 (3)
(C)(i));
Accommodation
"the reasonable adaptations
and accommodations for students with disabilities (as defined under section
602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) necessary to
measure the academic achievement of such students relative to State academic
content and State student academic achievement standards"(Section 1111 (3)
(C)(ii)). |
|
|
1 Items from Section 612 are eligibility requirements for states to receive assistance under the Grants to States program
Need to Update and Analyze
It is expected that evolution in the policies that states have will continue as small adjustments are made. These adjustments may be in response to a variety of within-state factors (e.g., implementation of a new assessment) and federal-level factors (e.g., non-approval of state assessment systems by Title I). It is important to keep track of these adjustments, and we do that in this report. But, it is also important to step back a bit and analyze what policies are telling us about some of the broader issues. With this goal in mind, we address the following questions in this report:
1. How many states’ policies reflect the three basic participation options for students with disabilities–general assessment without accommodations, general assessment with accommodations, alternate assessment? How many states have other options that are evident in their policies?
2. What, if any, qualitative differences exist in current participation policies?
3. How many states have policies that allow accommodations for all students?
4. What are the indications that some accommodations may be treated differently from others in reporting and accountability, and how many states make those implications clear in their policies?
5. What are the most controversial accommodations (e.g., read aloud, calculator, scribe), and what are states’ policies like for them?
In addition to answering these questions, we provide our typical tables, so that comparisons can be made to past policies.
Updating Procedures
In general, the same procedures were used for this analysis of states’ written participation and accommodations policies as have been used in the past. Unlike other analyses of policies, which often ask an informed respondent to answer survey questions (e.g., Bond, Jones, & Olson, 2001), NCEO examines publicly available written documents.
Gathering Policies
All 50 states were contacted via phone and email to update our files on participation and accommodation policies. We asked each state for copies of any policies they had revised since 1999. All 50 states responded to our request, with 45 states sending revisions and only four noting that they had not changed their participation and accommodations policies. We accepted new documents through September, 2001.
All of the tabled results of our analyses were sent back to the states for validation. State officials could indicate that there were no changes needed, ask for more information in order to decide whether the tables were accurate, or change the tables. If a state indicated the need for a change after reviewing the summary tables, we requested written documentation before making the changes. We accepted new changes or revisions through October 31, 2001. A complete list of state documents used to compile the tables is in Appendix A.
Presenting the Policies
We summarized the information in two sets of tables; one set for participation policies and the second set for accommodation policies. These tables are included in the Appendices in this report, thus enabling readers to make direct comparisons to the tables in the 1999 analysis. As always, presenting policy information in tables makes the information easily accessible, but it can sometimes obscure the underlying complexity of the individual state policies. For example, it is not apparent in any of the tables that the documents describing each state’s policies ranged from a few pages to hundreds of pages. Some states specify accommodations for each individual test, while others provide general accommodation guidelines that apply to all tests administered in the state. Some of these complexities are apparent in some of the tables, but others are evident only by looking at the actual written documents.
Participation Policies
In 2001, as in 1999, all states had a state-level participation policy for students with disabilities in state or district testing. Table 2 summarizes the numbers of states using different policy variables either without restrictions or with some restrictions, or prohibiting the use of a variable, or not mentioning each variable in determining how students participate in assessments. Details on the policies of specific states are provided in Tables B1 and B2 in Appendix B.
Participation Policy Variables
As is evident in Table 2, the primary variables that are used without restrictions in determining how students participate in assessments are: (1) course content or curricular validity (27 states), (2) parent involvement (20 states), and (3) non-pursuit of standard diploma or the general curriculum (12 states). All but one state indicated that the participation decision was an IEP team decision. Few variables are used with restrictions. However, states did prohibit the use of some variables, primarily: (1) the nature or category of a student’s disability (22 states) and (2) the percentage of time that the student received special education services (10 states). Table 2. Summary of Participation Policy Variables
|
Used without Restrictions |
Used |
Prohibited |
Not
Mentioned |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parent/Guardian Involvement Specified |
|
|
|
|
Receiving
Spec Ed Services/Percent Time |
|
|
|
|
Non-Pursuit of Standard Diploma or General Curriculum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Definitions:
IEP Team Decides = decision is based, in part or in whole, on what the IEP
team recommends; other variables may or may not be included. Nature/Category of Disability = decision
is based in whole or part, on the disability category of the student.
Course Content or Curricular Validity = decision is based, in part or in
whole, on whether the student received course or content areas covered by the
assessment, or whether the assessment provides a valid measure of the student’s
curriculum.
Parent/Guardian Involvement Specified = decision based specifically on the
parents’ desires, or decision must be specifically signed off by the parents. Non-Pursuit of Standard Diploma or General Curriculum = Decision is
based, in part or in whole, on whether the student participates in the general
academic curriculum.
Receiving Spec Ed Services/percent Time = decision is based, in part or in
whole, on whether the student receives special education services, what kind of
services the student receives, or the percentage of time that the student
receives special education services.
For the first time our analysis of participation policies included a new
variable–"student emotional anxiety." This addition reflects the increased
frequency of its use in state policies in 2001; 6 states permitted the
assessment participation decision to be based, in whole or part, on a student’s
emotional anxiety and the student’s possible adverse reaction to the testing
situation.
Many states’ policies on participation also cite various "other" variables that
are either used (with or without restrictions) or that are prohibited. Details
on these are in Table B2 of Appendix B. Evident in this table is the diversity
of the "other" criteria that states use, from requiring certification of a
medical condition to requests for exclusion for religious beliefs. The most
frequently mentioned "other" criterion refers to making decisions on the basis
of possible poor performance. Nine states refer to performance considerations,
with most indicating that poor performance is not an acceptable reason for
exclusion from the assessment. Two states (Montana, Oregon) do indicate that
performance levels may determine which testing option is most appropriate. The
next most frequent "other" criterion refers to extended student absence–seven
states have policies that do not permit exclusion due to excessive or extended
absence, while two states permit exclusion for absence. Six states prohibit
decisions being based on social, cultural, or economic differences. Another
frequently mentioned criterion is the location of the student (students not at
their home school, in treatment facilities, in hospitals, etc.).
Changes Since 1999. In comparing data in Table 2 (and in Appendix B, Tables B1
and B2) to 1999 data (Thurlow et al., 2000), several changes are evident. Most
notably, there has been an increase from 11 to 22 states that specifically do
not allow the nature or category of a student’s disability to be used in the
assessment participation decision-making process. Twenty-eight states now allow
participation decisions to be based at least partially on whether the student
received instruction in the course or content areas covered by the assessment
(27 states with no restrictions and 1 state with restrictions). Only 15 states
considered course content in the 1999 analysis.
The number of states specifically requiring parental involvement is now half of
the states (24 states without restrictions, 1 state with restrictions). This is
up considerably from the 9 states that required parental involvement in the 1999
analysis.
In the 1999 analysis, 4 states allowed participation decisions to be based at
least partially on the amount of time students received special education
services. This has been reduced to a single state in 2001, while the number of
states that explicitly do not allow this as a criterion increased from 6 to 10
states; 39 states do not address this criterion at all in their state policy.
Additional Testing Options
In Table 3 we summarize three additional testing options that are evident in the participation policies in some states: out-of-level testing, partial participation in testing, and multiple alternate assessment options. In this table we indicate whether the state’s written policy indicates that the option is: (1) available, (2) available, but the score from the option might not be aggregated, (3) not allowed, or (4) not mentioned. Details on the policies of specific states are provided in Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B.
Table 3.
Summary of Additional Testing Options
Testing Option
|
Available |
Available, Not Aggregated |
Not
Allowed |
Not
Mentioned |
Out-of-Level Testing* |
9 |
12 |
8 |
27 |
Partial
Participation |
21 |
0 |
4 |
25 |
More Than
One Alternate Assessment Option |
9 |
0 |
0 |
41 |
Definitions: Out-of-Level Testing
= student may take the assessment designated for a lower level than the one in
which he or she actually is placed to receive instruction;
Partial Participation = students make take certain parts of the assessment,
without being required to take others (e.g., content areas or subparts); Alternate Assessment = student
participates in a different assessment designed specifically for a subgroup of
students, including assessments for students with severe cognitive disabilities
and assessments for students who have not passed a graduation exam (i.e.,
however the state defines alternate assessment).
* Many
states have complicated written policies on out-of-level testing. Some policies allow out-of-level for some tests but not
others, or allow for all but do not aggregate the scores only for some of them. As a result, the numbers in the
Out-of-Level Testing row do not total 50.
Check Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B for details.
It is clear in Table 3 that the most frequently allowed option is partial
participation. Out-of-level testing is much less frequently allowed (at least,
as evident in written participation policies), and quite often prohibited. The
final option refers to the availability of more than one alternate assessment.
Since all states now indicate that an alternate assessment is available
(Thompson & Thurlow, 2001), we considered it important to look at those policies
indicating that more than one alternate assessment option is available.
It is clear in Table 3 that out-of-level testing is a controversial testing
option. As noted in the table’s footnote, the total number in the out-of-level
testing row does not equal 50 because of the combinations of allowed, allowed
but not aggregated, and not allowed within six states. A common scenario in
these states (but not the only one) was that out-of-level testing was allowed
for the state’s norm-referenced test, but only for a limited number of levels
below the tested grade level–if beyond that number of levels out, then the
scores would not be aggregated; at the same time, the states’ criterion
referenced test could not be taken out-of-level. Only 5 states’ written policies
indicated that out-of-level testing was allowed without any limitations.
The number of states showing up as allowing out-of-level testing in this
analysis of state policies is different from the number showing up in surveys of
state directors of special education (Thompson & Thurlow, 2001). There are a
number of reasons why this may be the case (e.g., it is considered part of the
regular test administration, particularly for norm-referenced tests; written
policy changes are evident later than actual changes in policy as reflected in
survey responses). Still, this discrepancy is worth further investigation.
The written policies in 9 states indicated that more than one alternate
assessment is available. Vermont, for example, has three alternate assessment
options: modified assessments, adapted assessments, and life skills assessments.
Connecticut refers to its out-of-level test as an alternate assessment, which is
in addition to another alternate assessment–a developmental checklist.
Changes Since 1999 . Comparing the information in Table 3 (and in Table B3 and
B4 in Appendix B) to 1999 information indicates that several changes have
occurred in written policies about out-of-level testing. In 2001, written
policies in 21 states indicated that out-of-level testing was available in some
form for one or more tests, up from 9 states in the 1999 analysis. Many of these
policies, however, have caveats, the most frequent being that out-of-level test
scores are not included in the aggregate scores of the student population.
In contrast, the number of states permitting partial participation has remained
basically the same, with only one fewer state allowing this option in 2001 (n =
21) compared to 1999 (n = 22). Whether this change is related to the new
availability of an alternate assessment is unknown.
Accommodations Policies
In this report, we use the term "accommodation" to indicate any change or adjustment to what are considered to be standard testing procedures or materials. Accommodations are those changes intended to enable a student with a disability to participate in state or district assessments, or for the student to better show knowledge and skills. Accommodations can be categorized in a variety of ways. For this report, we organize accommodations into five categories: presentation, presentation equipment and materials, response, scheduling/timing, and setting.
Terminology and Definitions
For many years now, terminology used to indicate testing changes has been variable from one place to the next, and often contradictory in meaning. Thurlow and Wiener (1999) found that five states (Florida, Maine, New Mexico, New York, and Ohio) used the term "modification" to refer to valid test changes. Other states used a variety of other terms. An analysis of the terminology used in 2001 policies to distinguish between test changes that produce "okay" and "not okay" scores reveals that terminology is changing. For example, only New York continues to use the term "modification" to indicate a test change that produces valid scores. [The terms "okay" and "not okay" are used to reflect a wide range of terms used in states to indicate that a score earned with accommodations is considered to be comparable to other scores versus being considered to be different in some way–whether "invalid," "non-aggregatable," or "non-standard".]
Table 4 is a summary of the terms used in state policies to distinguish between accommodations that produce okay scores and those that do not. For example, the Massachusetts policy now states: "The terms standard and non-standard accommodations will be used to designate those accommodations previously referred to as allowable and non-allowable under the MCAS guidelines."
Table 4. Terms Used to Indicate Okay and Not Okay Test Changes
|
Okay Accommodations |
Not
Okay Accommodationsa |
AL |
Standard
administration |
Nonstandard administration--Report will indicate nonstandard administration. |
AK |
Appropriate accommodation |
Modified
tests produce marked scores; Modified high school grad exam does not lead to
high school diploma. |
AZ |
Allowable
accommodations do not require special coding on student answer document. |
Modification – Requires special coding on student answer document; not
included in score summary reports. |
AR |
Permitted
accommodations |
Not
permitted accommodations |
CA |
Standard
test administration with accommodations – All scores reported and aggregated
into summary reports. |
Non
standard test administration – scores reported in individual score reports,
not in summary reports. |
CO |
Accommodations that must be documented, and accommodations that do not need
to be documented on student test book. |
|
CT |
Allowable
accommodations |
Modification – Scores cannot be interpreted in same way. |
DE |
Accommodations that permit aggregation of test scores. |
Accommodations that produce non-aggregated scores. |
FL |
Allowable
accommodations are limited to those listed in the test administration
manuals. |
Nonvalid
administration – Results are reported individually with indication of the
modifications used. |
GA |
Standard
administration – Procedures in administration manual are followed exactly
(e.g., large-print test, small-group setting). |
Nonstandard administration – Procedures in admin manual are not followed
exactly (e.g., reading test to student, use word processor). |
HI |
Allowed
accommodations |
Non-allowed accommodations |
IDb |
Accommodations |
|
IL |
Appropriate accommodations |
|
IN |
On CRT –
Accommodations that are permitted and documented. |
On CRT –
Accommodations that are permitted are not documented; other accommodations
are prohibited. |
IA |
Standard
administration, Standard administration with accommodations |
Modifications – Scores cannot be aggregated. |
KS |
Allowable
Accommodation |
Modification |
KY |
Accommodations |
Modifications
|
LA |
NRT -
Scores included in group averages for large print, transferred answers,
individual/small group admin, and repeated directions. |
NRT -
Scores for any other accommodations will not be included when group averages
are calculated. |
ME |
Specific
allowable accommodations |
|
MD |
Permitted
accommodations |
Accommodation invalidates comparison to national norms--Score is invalidated
in the scoring/data processing process; Accommodation not permitted. |
MA |
Standard
accommodations |
Non-standard accommodations are modifications. |
MI |
Accommodations |
|
MN |
Accommodations |
Modifications – Allowed on basic standards test, not allowed on
accountability assessments. |
MS |
Allowable
accommodations |
Non-allowable accommodations, Modifications |
MO |
Accommodations that do not impact a student’s score or results. |
Accommodations that do impact a student’s score or results. |
MT |
Standard
accommodations |
Nonstandard accommodations – Scores are not compared with those of other
students. |
NE |
Standard
administration – allowable accommodations |
Modified
administration |
NV |
Permissible accommodations |
Non-permissible accommodations result in an invalid administration of the
test. |
NH |
Reportable
test accommodations |
Test
administered using nonstandard procedures: Student counted in the novice
category and assigned a scaled score of 200 in pertinent content area
school, district, and state report. |
NJ |
Allowable
accommodations |
Modifications in test materials or procedures |
NM |
Standardized administration |
Not
allowable |
NY |
Modification* |
|
NC |
Appropriate accommodations |
|
ND |
Accommodations that require documentation. |
Accommodations that compromise the standardization of the test. |
OH |
Appropriate accommodations |
Modifications-- Not allowed |
OK |
Allowable
accommodations |
Modifications – Results cannot be reported with results from other students. |
OR |
Allowable
accommodations are considered standard administration. |
Modifications – Results are not included in group performance reporting and
do not count toward meeting performance standards for individual students. |
PA |
Accommodation
|
|
RI |
Permitted
accommodations |
|
SC |
Accommodation |
Modification
|