2007 State Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

Synthesis Report 69

Laurene L. Christensen, Sheryl S. Lazarus, Melissa Crone,
Martha L. Thurlow

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Christensen, L. L., Lazarus, S. S., Crone, M., & Thurlow, M. L. (2008). 2007 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 69). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Overview
Section 1—Participation Policies
Section 2 – Accommodation Policies
Types of Accommodations and Impact of Use
Summary
Conclusions
References
Appendix A. State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation and Accommodation Policies
Appendix B. Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to extend special thanks to Michael Moore for his commitment to the development of the Data Viewer, the interactive tool and database that complements this report. Michael’s ongoing efforts to revise the Data Viewer have made this report possible. Additional thanks go to Kathryn Lail, who helped with the initial data collection for this project.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state policies on assessment participation and accommodations since 1992. The purpose of the current analysis is to update information on these policies that was last reported by NCEO in 2006 (based on 2005 data). In this analysis policies from all fifty states, plus eight of the unique states, were reviewed. Two unique states, Bureau of Indian Education and U.S. Virgin Islands, were not included in the analysis.

The current analysis of states’ 2007 participation and accommodation policies found that state policies on participation and accommodation continue to evolve, and that they have become more detailed and specific than in previous years. Key findings from this analysis include:

This analysis did not attempt to determine the degree to which state policies complied with federal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 or Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Instead, it is a descriptive analysis of the written policies that states have for the participation of students with disabilities in assessments and the use of accommodations during their assessments.

Table of Contents

Overview

Given that both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 and Title I of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 require the participation of students with disabilities in state assessments, it is important to study how they will participate, and what, if any, accommodations will be used. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state polices that address participation and accommodations for students with disabilities since 1992, with the most recent analysis examining 2005 policies (Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, Eisenbraun, & Kato, 2006). Each time that NCEO has examined state policies (Clapper, Morse, Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2005; Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail, K. E., Eisenbraun, K. D., & Kato, K., 2006; Thurlow, House, Boys, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 2000; Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Robey, 2002; Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995a, 1995b; Thurlow, Seyfarth, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1997; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993), the policies have changed significantly. Over time, the policies have shifted from indicating an increasing number of states with policies on participation and accommodations, to a growing sophistication in states’ policies.

Since the last update, recent federal regulations have had an influence on states’ accommodations policies. The federal peer review of state standards and assessments, which was begun in 2004, has required states to have clear policies for accommodations, to document the link between instructional and assessment accommodations, to monitor the availability and use of accommodations, and to ensure that the use of accommodations results in a valid and meaningful score. In addition, the federal regulations of April 2007 that give states the option to develop an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards have also started to have some influence on states’ accommodations policies. Even though these regulations were released after the policies were collected for this analysis, some states, in anticipation of these regulations, had already undergone the development of this alternate assessment, and others were preparing for the development of this assessment, and to some degree, this preparation can be observed in state policies on participation and accommodations.

Recent changes in participation and accommodations policies include the following: (1) attention to accommodations that allow for valid scores; and (2) greater differentiation among accommodations allowed for different groups of students, such as students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), students with 504 plans, and English language learners.

Need to Update and Analyze

This current update, based on 2007 policies, sought to answer questions similar to those in previous examinations of state participation and accommodations policies. These questions included:

In the current report, we have made several additions and adjustments to our analysis. Several new accommodations were added to the analysis, and these will be noted where they are discussed in this report. One major change to our report is the inclusion of the unique states. The ten unique states we attempted to collect policies from are are American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

A change to our analysis this year was the introduction of the term Unique Aggregated Accommodation. In addition to the other policy categories of Allowed, Allowed in Certain Circumstances, Allowed with Implications for Scoring, and Prohibited, we use this Unique Aggregated Accommodation to refer to accommodations that may be called nonstandard in some states or conditional in others but are still allowed accommodations that do not result in implications for scoring or aggregation. This category replaces the A* category from the last report, which included accommodations called "nonstandard" even though there were no implications for scoring or aggregation. In addition, the Unique Aggregated Accommodation is also included as a testing condition in the Participation Policies section of the report under Additional Testing Options.

Process Used to Review State Policies

In general, procedures used for this analysis of states’ written participation and accommodation policies were similar to the procedures used in the past. As was the case in previous years, the information for this report was gathered through the examination and analysis of publicly available written documents. This is in contrast to other approaches that survey informed respondents and that may use a restricted list of accommodations.

Participation and accommodation policies for the 2006-07 school year were obtained from all regular states’ Web sites as of June 15, 2007. Participation and accommodations policies for unique states were obtained through email and in-person visits. The initial compilation of data for each state was entered into an online database with a composite entry for each state, which is referred to as a state profile. The profiles were made accessible in an online format to states in December 2007. States were then asked to verify the information in their profiles by indicating whether: (1) the information was accurate, (2) they needed additional information in order to decide whether the information contained in their profiles was accurate, or (3) the profiles contained inaccurate information and that changes needed to be made to the profile. If a state requested changes to the profile, we required evidence of a written document that contained the desired change before accepting the changes. State officials were able to make comments directly on the online profile, but they were also given the option to return their edited profiles to us via mail or fax. The information from the verified state profiles was then placed in the tables contained in this report. A complete list of state documents used to compile information for this report is in Appendix A.

Each accommodation is included in the report as a named accommodation when it is mentioned in the policies of at least six states. This represents a change from previous reports, when such a decision rule was not used to determine which accommodations to include in the report. As a result, several additional accommodations are specifically listed in this report for the first time. However, it should be noted that many of these accommodations were mentioned in state accommodations policies in previous years. They were listed as an "Other" accommodation in previous NCEO reports. Information about these accommodations in previous reports was presented in the appendix tables that contained detailed descriptions of the Other accommodations.

This analysis did not attempt to determine the degree to which state policies complied with federal requirements under IDEA or NCLB. Those determinations can be made only by the appropriate federal authorities. This report is a descriptive analysis of the written policies that states have for the participation of students with disabilities in assessments and their use of accommodations during assessments.

Organization of the Report

In this update we summarize and categorize the extensive information contained in states’ participation and accommodation policies. As in past reports, presenting information in figures and tables makes it more accessible, but can sometimes obscure the underlying complexities of the individual state policies. For example, it is not apparent in any of the tables that state policies on participation and accommodations range in length from a few pages to hundreds of pages. This complexity is exacerbated by the burgeoning number of state documents addressing participation and accommodations that are currently available. Some states have policies in place with few or no related supporting documents, while others have, in addition to policies, a full complement of related materials such as procedural manuals and training guides.

This report is divided into two sections. Section 1 addresses the information gathered on participation. Section 2 contains the review of states’ accommodation policies.

Tables that detail accommodations by state are included in Appendix B of this report. Summary figures and tables are provided in the main sections of the report. A comparison was made, where possible, to similar information from previous reports. All information in this report that refers to 2005 policies is from Lazarus et al. (2006).

In addition to this report, all of the state policies on participation and accommodations can be accessed online with the NCEO Data Viewer (http://data.nceo.info), which allows users to create customizable reports including charts and maps that show state policies.

Table of Contents

Section 1—Participation Policies

In addition to examining the specific participation criteria in the states, we examined additional testing options that were mentioned along with references to circumstances in which students might not participate in assessment. For each of these participation topics, we describe the 2007 findings and then compare these to findings from 2005.

Additional Testing Options

Some state participation policies included language about additional testing options beyond the three traditional testing options (i.e., general assessment without accommodations, general assessment with accommodations, and alternate assessments). These additional testing options included Selective Participation, Combination Participation, Out-of-Level Assessments, Locally Selected Assessments, Testing with Modifications or Non-Standard Accommodations, and Testing with Unique Aggregated Accommodations. Selective Participation means that students may take certain parts of the assessment without being required to take others, such as taking the math alternate assessment and no other assessments. Combination Participation means that students may take different parts of different tests, such as taking the reading alternate assessment, the math general assessment, and the science assessment with accommodations. Out-of-Level Assessments refers to the practice of allowing a student in one grade to take an assessment designed for another (usually lower) grade. Locally Selected Assessments are defined as assessments that school district staff select for students who are unable to participate in the general assessment even with accommodations. Testing with Modifications or Non-Standard Accommodations is the term used when a state permits the administration of a test with modifications or nonstandard accommodations. These accommodations are typically considered to change what is being tested to an extent that invalidates a student’s score. Testing with Unique Aggregated Accommodations, new to this report, refers to the use of accommodations that may be called conditional or nonstandard, but that have no implications for scoring or aggregation.

Thirty-seven states’ and three unique states’ policies indicated that at least one additional testing option was available to students (see Figure 1). The participation policies in the remaining states did not indicate that additional testing options were available. Figure 2 illustrates the specific type of additional testing options and the number of states that allow it. Combination Participation is the largest category with 23 states allowing this testing option. For example, a state’s policy may indicate that participation by content area is allowed; therefore, when two or more content areas are being assessed, such as reading, writing, and math, the student may take the general assessment in math, and alternate assessments in reading and writing. In addition to Combination Participation, Testing with Modifications or Nonstandard Accommodations follows closely with 22 states allowing this option.

Two unique states mentioned offering one additional testing option (see Figure 1). One unique state has two or more additional testing options, and seven unique states had no mention of additional testing options. Three types of additional testing options were mentioned in policies in the unique states (see Figure 2): Testing With Modifications (mentioned by two unique states), Out-of-Level Testing (mentioned by one unique state), and Selective Participation (mentioned by one unique state).

Details on the policies of the specific states are provided in Tables B.1 and B.2 in Appendix B.

The number of states with participation policies that specifically cite the availability or non-availability of additional testing options has stayed about the same since 2005. In 2005, 17 states had one additional testing option; this number increased to 20 in 2007. However, in 2005, 19 states mentioned having two or more additional testing options, and this number decreased to 17 for 2007. The number of states that did not mention additional testing options (e.g., the policies neither permitted nor prohibited additional testing options) remained constant at 13 from 2005 to 2007.

In terms of the variation in types of additional testing options offered, these numbers also changed only slightly from 2005. Combination Participation increased from 19 states mentioning this option in 2005 to 23 states in 2007. Locally Selected Assessments increased by one, from two in 2005 to three in 2007. The remaining types of additional testing options decreased in number in 2007. Testing with Modifications decreased by one, from 23 in 2005 to 22 in 2007. Out-of-Level Assessments decreased from being mentioned by eight states in 2005 to five states in 2007. Similarly, Selective Participation was included in six state policies in 2005; in 2007, only three states offered this option.

Circumstances in Which Students Are Not Included in Any Form of Statewide Assessment

In addition to examining state policies on how students were included in statewide assessment programs, we also looked for circumstances in which students were not included in any form of state assessment.

Twenty-seven states prohibited excluding students from statewide assessment programs (see Figure 3). When analyzing the state policies, we considered a state to meet the requirements of exclusion prohibited if they stated that all students must participate, and no excluded groups were mentioned. However, if we considered only those states that explicitly stated "Exclusion Prohibited," only two regular states would be counted as meeting the criteria.

Five unique states met the requirements for exclusion criteria using the current interpretation; however, no unique states met the requirements under the more explicit criteria. Three unique states used "Other" criteria for permitting the exclusion of students from assessments, as illustrated in Figure 3. In each case, the reason for exclusion was student incarceration.

As shown in Figure 3, 15 states permitted the exclusion of students in the case of a medical condition or illness, six states permitted exclusion according to a parent exemption, and one state permitted exclusion for student refusal. Ten states allowed "Other" cases for exclusion—these included exclusion of foreign exchange students, expelled students, and students who have recently experienced a traumatic event.

This information is summarized in Figure 3 and provided in detail by state in Appendix B, Tables B.3 and B.4.

The number of state policies in 2007 that specifically stated that exclusion from statewide testing was prohibited decreased from 30 states in 2005 to 27 states in 2007. No states continue to use "Disruptive Behavior" as a reason for exclusion of a student from statewide testing; in 2007, this was removed from our summary. Three states permitted "Parent Exemption" in 2005, and six states allowed it in 2007.

Participation Decision-Making Criteria—Allowed

Figure 4 summarizes the decision-making criteria that states used to determine how students with disabilities participate in statewide assessment systems. The criteria that states cited most frequently were: (1) IEP Determined (50 states); (2) Instructional Relevance/Instructional Goals (44 states); (3) Current Performance/Level of Functioning (36 states); and (4) Level of Independence (36 states).

In terms of the unique states, the criteria that were stated most frequently in the policies included the following (see Figure 4): (1) Level of Independence (6 unique states); (2) IEP Determined (5 unique states); (3) Instructional Relevance/Instructional Goals (5 unique states); (4) Current Performance/Level of Functioning (5 unique states); and (5) Student Needs and Characteristics (5 unique states).

Additional participation criteria that states used when making participation decisions are included in Tables B.5 and B.6 in Appendix B.

Several policy changes in variables that can be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities participate in statewide assessments were evident. Fewer states mentioned several policy variables in 2005 than in 2007. Level of Independence increased from 18 states in 2005 to 36 states in 2007. Nature or Category of Disability was another variable that was mentioned more frequently in the state policies (up from 5 to 22 states). Instructional Relevance/Instructional Goals increased from 35 states allowing this variable for decision making in 2005 to 44 states in 2007.

Three variables decreased in the number of states that mentioned them in their policies between 2005 and 2007. Many fewer states permitted consideration of Student Needs and Characteristics (down from 26 to 10 states). The Content/Purpose/Nature of Assessment was also mentioned in fewer policies (down from 11 states to 8 states). Finally, there were fewer variables in the "Other" category, with only two states including other variables (down from 5 in 2005).

Participation Decision-Making Criteria—Not Allowed

Many states listed criteria that cannot be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities will participate in statewide assessments. As shown in Figure 5, the criteria that were most frequently cited included the following: (1) Presence or Category of Disability (25 states); (2) Cultural, Social, Linguistic, or Environmental Factors (23 states); and (3) Excessive Absences (22 states). Fourteen states have policies that state that Low Expectations/Anticipated Low Scores may not be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities will participate in assessments. Two states specifically mentioned that low performance or concerns about Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) cannot be used to make participation decisions.

Also shown in Figure 5, the criteria the unique states mentioned most frequently as variables that cannot be used for participation decision-making included: (1) Presence or Category of Disability (5 unique states; (2) Excessive Absences (3 unique states); and (3) Cultural, Social, Linguistic, or Environmental Factors (3 unique states).

Detailed information on participation decision-making criteria for each state can be found in Tables B.7 and B.8 of Appendix B.

Figure 5. Summary of Participation Policy Variables That Cannot Be Used to Make Decisions About How Students with Disabilities will Participate in Statewide Assessments

The number of states that cited variables that cannot be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities will participate in statewide assessments stayed about the same from 2005 to 2007 for most categories. The largest increases occurred in the categories of Achievement Level (up from 7 to 13 states) and Low Expectations/Anticipated Low Scores (up from 10 to 14 states). The largest decreases occurred in the categories Presence or Category of Disability (down from 28 to 25), Instructional Program/Program Setting (down from 17 to 14), and % Time Receiving Special Education Services (down from 12 to 9).

Table of Contents

Section 2—Accommodation Policies

All states have policies that address the use of accommodations by students with disabilities in statewide assessments. This section of the report addresses state policy language concerning groups eligible to receive accommodations, state policies indicating the criteria that can and cannot be used to make decisions about a student’s use of an accommodation, guidance for the use of accommodations that are not on an approved list, accommodations involving a third party/access assistant to administer or record, and the use and impact of various types of accommodations.

Additional Student Groups Eligible for Accommodations

Accommodations policies may apply to students with IEPs, students with 504 plans, students who are both English language learners (ELLs) and have a disability, students who qualify for Title I services, or to all students. Many states also have separate accommodations policies for ELL students, but we did not track those policies for this report. Those readers interested in learning more about ELL policies are referred to Rivera, Collum, Shafer, and Sia (2005).

Figure 6 provides information about the extent to which various categories of students, in addition to ELLs or students with disabilities, used accommodations during statewide assessments. This information is provided by state along with detailed information on additional student groups eligible for accommodations in each state in Tables B.9 and B.10 in Appendix B. All states mention in their policies that at least one other group is eligible for accommodations. Forty-five states indicated in their policies that accommodations were to be provided to students who had a 504 plan. Forty-five states specified in their policies that ELLs were eligible for accommodations.

No states allowed all students to use any accommodations without restrictions. Fourteen states allowed all students to use standard accommodations under certain circumstances and with specific restrictions. For example, some states allow any student to receive an accommodation if it is used in regular instruction.

In 2005, as in previous years, we did not include ELL accommodations in our analysis. Previously, we did analyze whether states’ special education accommodation policies addressed students who both have an IEP and are ELLs. That is, in most cases, we could infer from the accommodations policies that the state provided accommodations for students who are ELLs and have an IEP because ELL accommodations are mentioned within the sections of the document related to students with disabilities. The special education policies of 45 states had information about the use of accommodations for students who had both a disability and are ELLs. States were included in this total if they mentioned English language learners in their policies and if they included accommodations appropriate for ELLs (e.g., bilingual dictionary, side-by-side translation, etc). However, only 13 states mentioned explicitly in their policies that ELLs with IEPs are eligible for accommodations.

In the unique states, four policies mentioned that students who have 504 plans also are eligible for accommodations. One unique state indicated that English language learners are an eligible student group. Two unique states were marked as including ELL/IEP students under the current interpretation for ELL/IEP, and none under the more explicit criteria.

The number of state policies that included students with a 504 plan increased from 41 states in 2005 to 45 states in 2007. In addition, the number of state policies that indicated all students may use accommodations with qualification more than doubled from 6 states in 2005 to 14 states in 2007. The number of states mentioning ELLs with IEPs as eligible for accommodations increased from 25 states in 2005 to 45 states in 2007.

Accommodations Decision-Making Criteria—Allowed

States use a variety of criteria to guide the process for making decisions on student use of accommodations. As shown in Figure 7, the policies of 47 states indicated that the use of instructional and classroom accommodations are to be considered when making decisions. Two other criteria that many states included in their policies were that accommodations were selected based on individual student needs and characteristics (34 states) and that the accommodations maintained the validity of the test and resulting score (32 states).

Some states differentiated between the types of accommodations that may be provided on exit exams and other large-scale assessments or between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. The category of Purpose/Nature of Assessment is used to track whether different accommodations were permitted on different types of assessments in a state. In 12 states, the purpose or nature of the assessment was one of the criteria decision-making teams were asked to consider when making decisions about the use of accommodations.

For the unique states, the most common criterion allowed is Individual Student Needs/Characteristics (5 unique states). In addition, requiring that accommodations are Used for Classroom and Instruction (4 unique states) and Maintains the Validity of the Test and Resulting Score (4 unique states) were also common considerations.

See Tables B.11 and B.12 in Appendix B for more detailed information on criteria states allow for making decisions about accommodations.

Since 2005, the state policies indicating the variables that can be used to guide the decision-making process for using accommodations during assessments have changed very little. The most common variables—Used for Classroom and Instruction, Individual Student Needs/Characteristics, and Maintains the Validity of the Test and Resulting Score—have remained virtually the same. The Length of Time Accommodation has been Used increased from six states in 2005 to 14 in 2007.

Accommodations Decision-Making Criteria—Not Allowed

States also prohibited basing decisions about accommodations on certain criteria (see Figure 8). Policies generally listed fewer variables that could not be used in the decision-making process as compared to the number of variables that could be used. Nine states do not permit consideration of the Nature or Category of a student’s Disability. A few states indicated that Administrative Convenience (5 states) and Instructional Program/Program Setting (3 states) may not be considered when making decisions about accommodations. Four states listed other criteria as well (e.g., the availability of an accommodation).

In the unique states, only the Nature/Category of Disability (1 unique state) and Other (1 unique state) were mentioned as variables that cannot be used to make accommodations decisions.

State specific information, as well as information about other criteria, is provided in Tables B.13 and B.14 in Appendix B.

Two categories decreased in the number of states mentioning these variables in their policies: Nature/Category of Disability decreased from 12 states in 2005 to 9 states in 2007, and Percent Time/Amount of Services Received decreased from 4 states in 2005 to 1 state in 2007. The number of states that indicated Administrative Convenience could not be used increased from 1 to 5 states.

Guidance for Using Accommodations That Are Not on the "Approved" List

A summary of the guidance for using accommodations that are not on an "approved" list in state accommodation policies is found in Figure 9. Twenty-six state policies advised IEP team members to Seek Approval from the State Board or Department of Education when suggesting the use of an accommodation not specifically found on the "approved" list. A Committee Review of the request to use an accommodation not previously approved was indicated in four state policies. Six state policies required IEP team members to contact a specific individual at the state or district level when recommending a non-approved accommodation.

No unique states indicated guidelines for using accommodations that are not on an "approved" list.

Detailed information for each state is located in Tables B.15 and B.16 in Appendix B.

The number of state policies that require decision-making teams to Seek Approval from a State Board or Department of Education when inquiring about using accommodations not on the "approved" list decreased from 33 states in 2005 to 26 states in 2007. The number of states that require a Committee Review of the accommodation in question decreased by three states (down from 7 to 4) from 2005 to 2007. In 2005 eight states required decision-making teams to contact a specific person at the state or district level; by 2007 the number had decreased to six states.

Guidelines for the Administration of Accommodations Involving a Third Party/Access Assistant

Information was also collected on guidelines for accommodations involving a third party/access assistant. This information is summarized in Figure 10. An example of an accommodation that involves an access assistant would be an individual who serves as an intermediary between the student and the mode of access to the test (e.g., sign language interpreter, scribe, etc). If a decision-making team had selected "dictation of answers" as an accommodation, a state’s guidelines might then define the role of the scribe. Or, if "reading test items aloud" was the selected accommodation, the state may provide instructions on how to read numbers aloud and how to describe figures and diagrams on the test. For this analysis, we accepted anything the state produced as a written guideline. In other words, no quality criteria were imposed. Forty states provided written guidelines for scribes in their accommodation policies. Guidelines for readers and sign language interpreters were provided in 32 and 27 state policies, respectively.

Guidelines for scribes, readers, and sign language interpreters were all included in the policies of one unique state.

Detailed information for each state is located in Table B.17 in Appendix B.

Only five states had no guidelines in 2007, compared to 10 states in 2005. The number of states with guidelines for Scribes increased from 33 states to 40 states in 2007. More states also had guidelines for Readers in 2007 (up from 26 to 32). Guidelines for Sign Language Interpreters also increased from 20 in 2005 to 27 in 2007.

Table of Contents

Types of Accommodations and Impact of Use

In this section of the report, the accommodations that states most often allow, allow with restrictions, and prohibit are reviewed. We organized the accommodations into five categories: Presentation Accommodations, Equipment and Materials Accommodations, Response Accommodations, Scheduling/Timing Accommodations, and Setting Accommodations.

We also analyzed how the states’ policies indicated that the accommodations were to be used: (1) Allowed (A)—if the accommodation is used, the student must be given the score she or he earned, the student’s score must be aggregated, and the score must be used for accountability purposes. (2) Unique Aggregated (UA)—an added category for those situations in which an accommodation that may be called conditional or nonstandard is used, the student is given his or her earned score, and the student’s score is aggregated and used for accountability purposes. As previously noted this variable replaces the A* variable that was used in the 2005 report; A* was defined as nonstandard with no implications for scoring or aggregation. (3) Allowed in Certain Circumstances (AC)—the accommodation is allowed on some assessments and not others. (4) Allowed with Implications for Scoring and/or Aggregation (AI)—if the accommodation is used, the student automatically receives a certain score (e.g., zero or below basic) or the score is not aggregated. (5) Prohibited (P)—the use of this accommodation on statewide testing is not permitted.

For this analysis, we included an accommodation in our report if it was mentioned in the policies of at least six regular or unique states. This resulted in nine additional Presentation Accommodations being added in this 2007 update: Teacher Highlighting, Student Highlighting, Student Reads Test Aloud, Native Language Translation of Directions and/or Items, Increased Space Between Items, Simplify/Paraphrase Directions, Tactile Graphics, Prompt/Encourage Student, and Page Turner.

Equipment and Materials Accommodations also saw an increase in the number of different accommodations mentioned in statewide policies. For 2007, 12 additional accommodations were added: Adapted Writing Tools, Slant Board/Wedge, Secure Paper to Work Area, Visual Organizers, Color Overlay, Assistive Technology, Special Paper, Math Tables/Number Line, Dictionary/Glossary, Thesaurus, Keyboard, and Graphic Organizers.

Additions to the Response Accommodations category included the addition of one new accommodation—Monitor Placement of Student Responses. Flexible Scheduling was added to our analysis of Scheduling and Timing Accommodations.

Three accommodations were added to the Setting Accommodations reporting: Increase/Decrease Opportunity for Movement, Hospital, and Non-school Setting.

It should be noted that many of these newly added accommodations were listed in the "Other" category for 2005. However, in many cases the frequency in which these accommodations were mentioned in statewide policies has increased.

Presentation Accommodations

Presentation accommodations alter the way in which a test is presented to a student. Table 1 provides a summary of the presentation accommodations documented in state accommodation policies. State specific detailed information about these accommodations is included in Tables B.18 through B.20 in Appendix B.

The most frequently allowed presentation accommodations were: Large Print, Braille, Sign Interpret Directions, and Read Aloud Directions. The policies of 47 states allow the Large Print accommodation without any restrictions, and an additional two states allow the accommodation in certain circumstances. Forty-seven states permitted the use of Braille without restrictions, with one additional state allowing Braille under certain circumstances and with implications for scoring, and another state allowing the use of Braille as a unique aggregated accommodation/allowed in certain circumstances.

Read Aloud is represented in this analysis as two separate accommodations: Read Aloud Directions and Read Aloud Questions. Read Aloud Directions is permitted in all circumstances in 31 states, and in an additional 10 states under certain circumstances. Read Aloud Questions continues to be one of the more controversial accommodations. That is, there was a lack of consensus across states as to whether this accommodation should be allowed or allowed with restrictions. Although 50 states allowed questions to be read aloud, only three of these states allowed questions to be read aloud without restrictions. Two states’ policies about reading the questions aloud to a student indicated that it was a unique aggregated accommodation/allowed in certain circumstances. Twenty-four states permitted questions to be read aloud only in certain circumstances (e.g., on the math test, but not on the reading test). The policies of 20 states allowed questions to be read aloud in certain circumstances and with implications for scoring.

Sign Language Interpretation is also represented in this analysis as two separate accommodations: Sign Interpret Directions and Sign Interpret Questions. Thirty-nine states permitted directions to be signed without restrictions, and four states indicated that directions may be signed under certain circumstances (e.g., on the math test, but not on the reading test). Forty states allowed test questions to be signed. Of these, 11 states permitted questions to be signed without restrictions; two states’ policies about sign interpretation of questions indicated it was a unique aggregated accommodation/allowed in certain circumstances. A total of 19 states allowed questions to be signed in certain circumstances. An additional eight states indicated that questions may be signed in certain circumstances and with implications for scoring. As with the Read Aloud Accommodation, it is more controversial to sign questions than to sign directions. As indicated in Table B.20 in Appendix B, there were more limitations placed on sign interpretation of reading tests than sign interpretation of mathematics or science tests.

The unique states’ accommodations policies are summarized in Table 1b. In the unique states, the most commonly allowed presentation accommodations included the following: (1) Large Print, (2) Braille, and (3) Sign Interpret Directions.

In addition to the accommodations listed in Tables 1a and 1b, 37 states and 6 unique states had Other Presentation Accommodations. These accommodations are listed in detail in Table B.19 in Appendix B.

As in 2005, Large Print, Braille, Sign Interpret Directions, and Read Aloud Directions were the most frequently allowed presentation accommodations. In both 2005 and 2007, most states permitted questions to be read aloud with restrictions (e.g., in certain circumstances or with implications for scoring), although the number of states allowing this accommodation increased from 45 states in 2005 to 49 states in 2007. Similarly, in both 2005 and 2007, most states allowed questions to be signed, with or without restrictions. The number of states allowing this accommodation increased by one, from 39 states in 2005 to 40 states in 2007.