Accommodations: Results of a Survey of
Alabama Special Education Teachers
Synthesis Report 81
Jason R. Altman • Damien
C. Cormier • Sheryl S. Lazarus • Martha
L. Thurlow
National Center on Educational
Outcomes
University of Minnesota
Marla Holbrook • Miriam
Byers • DaLee Chambers • Margaret Moore
• Nanette Pence
Alabama Department of Education
November 2010
All rights reserved.
Any or all portions of this document may
be reproduced and distributed without
prior permission, provided the source is
cited as:
Altman, J. R., Cormier,
D. C., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L.,
Holbrook, M., Byers, M., Chambers, D.,
Moore, M., & Pence, N. (2010).
Accommodations: Results of a survey of
Alabama special education teachers
(Synthesis Report 81). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
This report contains the findings from a survey of 2,336 special education
teachers in the state of Alabama on making and implementing decisions about
accommodations. Key findings included:
- When making
instructional
accommodations decisions
51% of the survey
respondents considered
student characteristics
as an important factor.
Only 12% of respondents
considered student’s
performance in the
classroom to be an
important factor.
- Almost half of the
respondents took into
consideration whether
instructional
accommodations would
facilitate access to the
curriculum.
- The respondents were
more than twice as
likely to consider
student characteristics
than student needs that
impede success in class
when determining
instructional
accommodations.
- The most frequently
provided assessment
accommodations were
small group/individual
administration,
administration by
student’s special
education teacher,
extended time, and
administration in the
special education
classroom.
- More than one-third
of the teachers
considered state
policies and guidelines
to be an important
factor when making
assessment
accommodations
decisions.
- Student input was
rarely considered to be
an important factor in
the accommodations
process by the survey
respondents.
- Nearly two-thirds of
the respondents
indicated that the use
of an assessment
accommodation should
correspond to its use as
an instructional
accommodation.
A number of areas of strength were noted in the survey responses provided by
this large sample of Alabama special education teachers. The special education
teachers who responded to the survey demonstrated overall knowledge of
accommodations use, despite the challenging items presented to them.
Nevertheless, there is an evident need for professional development on making
accommodations decisions and on implementing accommodations for instruction and
assessment.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Overview
Teachers and other Individualized
Education Program (IEP) team members use
a variety of strategies when they make
decisions about instructional and
assessment accommodations. Instructional
accommodations are changes and supports
that enable students with disabilities
to meaningfully access the curriculum
during instruction (Thurlow, Thompson, &
Lazarus, 2006). As stated by Nolet and
McLaughlin (2005), “deciding on
accommodations requires that teachers
have a sound knowledge of key
constructs—the facts, skills and
concepts—embedded in a specific lesson
or instructional unit” (p. 85).
Assessment accommodations are changes in
testing materials and procedures that
enable students with disabilities to
meaningfully participate in an
assessment in a way that allows the
student’s knowledge and skills to be
assessed rather than the student’s
disabilities (Thurlow, Elliott, &
Ysseldyke, 2003; Thurlow et al. 2006).
For accommodations to be successfully
implemented in both settings teachers
need to understand the relationship
between instruction and assessment.
Assessment accommodations and
instructional accommodations are closely
linked in that accommodations used by a
student during assessment should have
previously been used in instruction. In
addition, teachers must also understand
the role of IEPs, and the legal basis
for accommodations in order to make
consistent and defensible decisions.
The 1997 reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) included language specific to
students with disabilities, inclusion in
assessment systems, and accommodations.
The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 2001 (U.S. Department of
Education, 2002) reinforced and extended
previous legislation, requiring the
participation of all students, including
students with disabilities, in statewide
assessments used for accountability
purposes. The 2004 reauthorization of
IDEA (U.S. Department of Education,
2004) clarified the previous legislation
and sought to align IDEA and ESEA
requirements (Lazarus, Thurlow, Lail, &
Christensen, 2009). More recent
regulations have continued this
clarification effort. For example, the
2007 ESEA regulations that addressed
alternate assessments based on modified
academic achievement standards (AA-MAS)
indicated that states must “develop,
disseminate information on, and promote
the use of appropriate accommodations to
increase the number of students with
disabilities who are tested against
academic achievement standards for the
grade in which a student is enrolled”
(U.S. Department of Education, 2007,
Sec. 200.6(a) (1) (ii)(A)).
Recent studies have shown that the
provision of accommodations is variable
across students, classrooms, and schools
depending on the accommodations,
educational context, and a student’s
demographic characteristics (Bottsford-Miller,
2008; Cormier, Altman, Shyyan, & Thurlow,
2010; Maccini & Gagnon, 2006) and that
certain accommodations are used more
often than others (Cawthon, 2006; Cox,
Herner, Demczyk, & Nieberding, 2006;
Gibson, Haeberlie, Glover, & Witter,
2005). Finizio (2008) found that a
student’s assessment accommodations more
frequently mirror accommodations used
for instruction than in the past.
However, teachers often still are
unclear on the definition and use of
certain accommodations (Byrnes, 2008).
According to Atchison (2008), there is a
need to improve the training and
resources available to teachers on
accommodations and accommodations
decision making.
Numerous studies have found that
accommodations decisions often are made
inconsistently and that accommodations
are administered haphazardly (see for
example, Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, Hamlett, &
Karns, 2000; Langley & Olsen, 2003;
Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2005;
Rhode Island Department of Education,
2002) if they are provided at all (DeStefano,
Shriner, & Lloyd, 2001; Lazarus et al.,
2005; Thurlow, Lazarus, & Christensen,
2008).
It is clear that teachers’ knowledge,
beliefs, and decisions set the tone for
how students use accommodations to
access the curriculum in school and the
content of a test. Many schools do not
have a plan of action for accommodations
decision making and use. As a result,
special and general education teachers
may have very different understandings
of the role of accommodations—which can
lead to poor decisions. Even among
special education teachers, those who
teach in different classroom
settings—that is, general education
classroom, co-teach (inclusion),
resource room, self-contained
classroom—may have different perceptions
of the role of accommodations. This
report presents the results of a survey
of Alabama special education teachers.
The survey was conducted to answer the
following questions:
- Which factors
influence IEP team
decisions about how
accommodations are used
for instruction and
assessment?
- Are there
differences in the
factors and
considerations
identified by
respondents for
selecting instructional
and assessment
accommodations?
- What are the most
frequently used
accommodations for
instruction and
assessment?
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Procedure
The Alabama Department of Education,
with support from the National Center on
Educational Outcomes (NCEO), developed a
survey of special education teachers in
Alabama on the factors and
considerations affecting accommodations
decisions for instruction and
assessment. The instrument also asked
questions about test day logistics. Some
of the survey questions were similar to
questions in an instrument originally
developed for the Education Policy
Reform Research Institute (EPRRI)
(Lazarus et al., 2005). The survey was
piloted with a small group of special
education teachers in Alabama and then
revised based on information from the
pilot. The final survey was administered
online using the Survey Monkey tool. See
Appendix A for a copy of the survey
instrument.
Local education agency (LEA)
administrators in the state of Alabama
received an email announcing the survey;
the announcement included the web
address for the Survey Monkey tool where
the survey could be accessed. The email
asked the administrators to invite
special education teachers in their LEA
to participate. The email was designed
so that it could be forwarded to the
special education teachers. Teachers
completed the survey between March and
May 2009.
There were 2,575 respondents to the
survey; 2,336 were special education
teachers. Other respondents included
paraprofessionals, adapted physical
education teachers, and a few
administrators. After the responses were
compiled, contact information—including
school district names— were verified by
state department of education personnel
to help ensure that the information was
entered into the data base consistently
and accurately. Responses from
non-special education teachers were not
included in this analysis.
Counts and percentages were tabulated
for each survey item and presented in
different formats seen in the results
section and Appendix B. The data
collected through the survey do not
allow for inferential statistics due to
the population not being randomly
sampled and both demographic (e.g.,
teaching setting and grade level) and
survey items not necessarily being
mutually exclusive. These limitations to
the data also restrict the ability to
use non-parametric methods such as
Chi-Square tests for statistically
significant differences between groups
in item responses. Thus, when
comparisons are made between groups,
descriptive results are presented and
noteworthy differences are highlighted
only if they meet an arbitrary threshold
of a 4% difference from the entire
sample’s mean percentage. This criterion
was selected because, for an item that
allows for only a single response, a 4%
difference in responding would represent
a difference of approximately 100
teachers given the aforementioned sample
size of nearly 2,500 respondents. The
mean overall percentage for each item
was used as a reference point because it
is an indicator of the central tendency
of the population of special education
teachers. Therefore, for the purposes of
this report, a deviation equal to or
greater than 4% from the overall mean of
the population is to be considered a
substantial difference between a
particular group of teachers and the
type of responding seen collectively
from teachers.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Results
The special education teachers were
asked which classroom setting served
as the context for the majority of
their instruction. Teachers were
able to select more than one option.
Sixty-three percent of respondents
indicated that they taught in a
resource room setting for at least
part of their work day (see Figure
1). Almost half were in co-teaching
(inclusion) settings for at least
part of the day. Fewer respondents
indicated that they taught in a
general education or self-contained
classroom.
Figure 1. Percent of
Respondents Who Provide Instruction
in Specific Settings
Instructional Accommodations
Special education teachers were asked
how IEP teams at their schools
determined a student’s needs for
instructional accommodations. Each
teacher was asked to select the
three most important considerations.
All responses are shown in Figure 2;
thus, the percentages add to more
than 100%. As shown in Figure 2, the
student’s present level of
functioning was selected by 57%
of the respondents. Nearly half
checked accommodations will
facilitate access to curriculum.
Other frequently selected responses
included: evidence of successful
prior use of accommodations,
difficulty of content standards
being taught, and student’s
learning style.
As indicated in Table B1 in Appendix B,
special education teachers who
taught in a self-contained setting
had a substantially higher
percentage of respondents selecting
student’s disability
classification, student’s present
level of functioning, and
parental input when compared to
the overall mean percentage of
teachers who selected these items.
However, the percentage of teachers
in self-contained classrooms who
selected accommodations will
facilitate access to curriculum
was substantially less than the
overall percentage of respondents
selecting this item overall.
Conversely, general education and
co-teaching teachers selected this
item 5% more than the overall mean
percentage for all teachers.
Figure 2. Top Factors for
Decision Making on Instructional
Accommodations
Respondents were asked to rank from 1
to 7 (with 1 being most important)
the considerations used by the IEP
team in determining appropriate
accommodations for instructional
purposes. If a respondent ranked the
item 1 or 2, it was coded as
“important.” As shown in Figure 3,
student’s characteristics was ranked
as important by 51% of the special
education teachers. Thirty-four
percent of the respondents ranked
student’s learning styles
as important, while about a quarter
of the teachers ranked student
data and successful
classroom accommodation trials
as important. The totals shown in
Figure 3 do not add up to 100%
because teachers could rank more
than one item.
Table B2 in Appendix B presents
additional details about how
teachers in different classroom
settings responded. As indicated in
Table B2, the only substantial
deviation from the overall mean was
in the case of respondents who
taught in a self-contained setting
who more frequently selected
student’ s performance in the
classroom than teachers in
other settings.
Figure 3. Considerations
Reported by Respondents as Most
Important in Making Instructional
Accommodations Decisions
The survey included a scenario that
pertained to the process that a
teacher might use for a student who
was having difficulty finishing math
assignments and was falling behind
his or her grade-level peers.
Respondents were instructed to
select exactly three responses that
best represented what they were most
likely to do in the given situation.
As shown in Figure 4, at least 60
percent of the respondents opted for
individualized intervention by
teacher and provide math
instructional accommodations.
Other frequently listed responses
included speak to student to
find the cause of difficulties
and conduct an assessment of
student’s level of performance.
Answer choices that were seldom
marked were meet with the
student’s parents and offer tips for
at home and encourage
student to pay more attention during
instruction.
As indicated in Table B3 in Appendix B,
respondents who taught in a
self-contained setting selected
convene an IEP team meeting
less frequently than teachers in
other settings. Similarly, teachers
in co-teaching settings selected
conduct an assessment of student’s
level of performance
substantially less than average when
compared to other settings, whereas
teachers in self-contained settings
selected this item substantially
more than average. Another
noteworthy difference was that
co-teaching teachers tended to
select speak with the student to
find the cause of his/her
difficulties more frequently
than other teachers.
Figure 4. Percentage of
Respondents Marking Specific Actions
in Response to Instructional
Scenario
Assessment Accommodations
Respondents were asked to select three
factors that influenced IEP team
decisions about accommodations used
on statewide assessments. As shown
in Figure 5, accommodation(s)
for instruction and classroom tests
was selected by 62% of the special
education teachers. Also, more than
one in three respondents selected
the following factors:
accommodation(s) proven successful
in class, student’s present level of
functioning, and state
policies and guidelines. Only
3% of the teachers considered
student input to be an important
factor.
As indicated by Table B4 in Appendix B,
respondents who taught in a
self-contained setting more
frequently selected student’s
present level of functioning
and difficulty of content
standards, but selected
accommodation(s) used for
instruction and classroom tests
substantially less than average.
Teachers who taught in co-teaching
(inclusion) settings more frequently
selected accommodation(s) used
for instruction than teachers
in other settings.
Figure 5. Top Factors for
Decision Making on Assessment
Accommodations
Respondents were asked to rank from 1
to 7 (with 1 being most important)
the considerations used by the IEP
team in determining appropriate
assessment accommodations. If a
respondent ranked the item 1 or 2,
it was coded as “important.” As
shown in Figure 6, 49% of the
respondents selected successful
classroom accommodation trials,
and 38% selected subject matter
being taught or tested, as
important factors.
As shown in Table B5 in Appendix B, the
only substantial difference between
groups and the average response rate
for all items was for teachers who
taught in self-contained classrooms
who selected student
characteristics less frequently
than teachers in other settings.
The questionnaire included a second
scenario that pertained to the
implementation of assessment
accommodations. Specifically, the
scenario involved a student who was
new at the school and required
testing accommodations. The teachers
were asked how accommodations
decisions would be made for this
student. As shown in Figure 7 more
than three-quarters of the
respondents indicated that the
student would typically be
accommodated based on the IEP from
previous school. Sixty-three
percent indicated that previous
school is contacted to
determine which accommodations are
needed.
Figure 6. Considerations
Reported by Respondents as Most
Important in Making Assessment
Accommodations Decisions
As shown in Table B6 in Appendix B, the
only substantial difference between
groups of teachers and the mean
response rate for each item was that
respondents who taught in
self-contained classrooms selected
call the central office
less often than teachers who taught
in other settings.
Figure 8 lists the accommodations that
the respondents indicated that their
students used either always or
frequently. Two-thirds of the
teachers indicated that their
students frequently or always had
the small group/individual
administration accommodation.
About 50% of the teachers indicated
that their students frequently or
always had administration by
student’s special education teacher,
extended time limits and
administration in the special
education classroom. About 40%
indicated preferential seating.
Figure 7. Percent of
Respondents Marking Specific Actions
in Response to Assessment Scenario
Table B7 in Appendix B presents
detailed information about
assessment accommodations used by
the teachers in different classroom
settings. A number of noteworthy
deviations from the mean were seen
between classroom settings,
particularly for teachers in
self-contained classrooms.
Specifically, teachers in
self-contained classroom were
substantially more likely to select
the following accommodations:
best time of day, breaks between
subtests/during test, special
education teacher, extended time
limits, flexible scheduling,
directions interpreted/signed, in
the special education classroom,
preferential seating, small
group/individual administration, and
recording accommodations.
Teachers in the resource room and
co-teaching settings selected less
frequently than average best
time of day and flexible
scheduling. Additionally,
teachers in co-teaching settings
selected less frequently than the
population average by student’s
special education teacher and
in the special education
classroom. Respondents who were
teachers in the general education
classroom also selected in the
special education classroom
substantially less than the
population average.
Figure 8. Percent of
Respondents’ Students Using Specific
Assessment Accommodations
The survey asked respondents to mark
the top three ways in which they
ensured that students received the
state assessment accommodations that
are specified by the IEP. As shown
in Figure 9, the responses selected
by two out of three respondents were
teacher discusses the
accommodations with test
administrator and they are provided
on the assessment and test
administrator has written
documentation of accommodations
needs and they are provided.
Also more than half of the
respondents indicated that the
teacher administers the test and
provides accommodations in the IEP.
As with previous questions, because
respondents made three selections,
percentages sum to more than 100% in
Figure 9.
According to Table B8 in Appendix B,
respondents who taught in
self-contained classrooms more
frequently selected the
student’s teacher administers the
test and provides the accommodations
he/she thinks the student needs,
but selected test administrator
has written documentation of
accommodations needs and they are
provided and special equipment is
prepared in advance and provided to
the student on test day
substantially less than the special
education teacher population
average. Conversely, teacher
discusses accommodations with the
test administrator and they are
provided on the assessment and
test administrator has written
documentation of accommodations
needs and they are provided
were selected more substantially
more frequently than average by
resource room teachers and
co-teaching teachers, respectively.
Figure 9. Percentage of
Respondents Marking How
Accommodations are Implemented on
Test Day
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Discussion
The Alabama special education teacher
survey results provide insight into how
IEP teams select instructional and
assessment accommodations. There was
wide variation across survey respondents
in the factors considered when making
accommodations decisions. For example,
more than 57% of the survey respondents
indicated that a key criterion
considered by the IEP team in the
instructional accommodations process for
a student was the student’s present
level of functioning, whereas 28%
identified the difficulty of content
standards being taught as an
important factor. These are generally
considered to be sound criteria for IEP
teams to consider (see for example,
Crawford, 2007; Thurlow et al., 2006;
Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2003).
Forty-nine percent of the special
education teachers indicated that
assessment accommodations decisions were
based on successful classroom
accommodations trials during
instruction, and thirty-nine percent of
special education teachers identified
the subject matter being taught or
tested as an important
consideration. According to Elliott and
Thurlow (2006), it is appropriate to try
accommodations to see which work for
specific students. It is a concern that
only a few teachers considered
student input to be an important
factor. Student input about how
accommodations work provides important
information that can be used during the
process.
There may be a need for increased
emphasis on the importance of state
policies and federal regulations because
only about one-third of the teachers
indicated that they considered state
policies and guidelines to be an
important consideration when making
assessment accommodations decisions.
Teachers in self-contained classrooms
were more likely to consider
student’s disability classification
when making instructional and assessment
accommodations decisions than teachers
in other settings. According to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
accommodations decisions should not be
based on a student’s disability category
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002,
2004).
The results of this study suggest
that special education teachers are
knowledgeable about accommodations, but
may have some gaps in their knowledge
about how to effectively select and
implement accommodations for instruction
and assessment. Local Education Agency
(LEA) personnel need training on
accommodations so teachers and IEP teams
will have a better understanding of the
process. There may also be a need for
teacher preparation programs to provide
training on accommodations decision
making for pre-service special education
and general education teachers.
Top of page |
Table of Contents
References
Atchison, B. T. (2008). Assistive technology as an
accommodation on accountability assessments: An analysis of
attitudes and knowledge of special education professionals.
Dissertation Abstracts International.
Bottsford-Miller, N. A. (2008). A
cross-sectional study of reported
inconsistency in accommodation use in
the classroom and standardized test
setting for elementary and middle school
students with disabilities.
Dissertation Abstracts International,
University of Minnesota.
Byrnes, M. (2008). Educators’
interpretations of ambiguous
accommodations. Remedial and Special
Education, 29(5), 306 -315.
Cawthon, S. W. (2006). National
survey of accommodations and alternate
assessment for students who are deaf or
hard of hearing in the United States.
Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 11(3), 337 -359.
Cormier, D. C., Altman, J. R., Shyyan,
V., & Thurlow, M. L. (2010). A
summary of the research on the effects
of test accommodations: 2007-2008
(Technical Report 56). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center
on Educational Outcomes.
Cox, M. E., Herner, J. G., Demczyk,
M. J., & Nieberding, J. J. (2006).
Provision of testing accommodations for
students with disabilities on statewide
assessments. Remedial and Special
Education, 27(6), 346 -354.
Crawford, L. (2007). State
testing accommodations: A look at their
value and validity. New York:
National Center for Learning
Disabilities.
DeStefano, L., Shriner, J. G., &
Lloyd, C. (2001). Teacher decision
making in participation of students with
disabilities in large-scale assessment.
Exceptional Children, 68(1),
7-22.
Elliott, J. L., & Thurlow, M. L.
(2006). Improving test performance
of students with disabilities on
district and state assessments (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Finizio, II, N. J. (2008). The
relationship between instructional and
assessment accommodations on student
IEPs in a single urban school district.
Dissertation Abstracts
International, University of
Massachusetts-Boston.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S.
B., Hamlett, C., & Karns, K. (2000).
Supplementing teacher judgments about
test accommodations with objective data
sources. School Psychology Review,
29(1), 65-85.
Gibson, D., Haeberlie, F., Glover, T.
A., & Witter, E. A. (2005). Use of
recommended and provided testing
accommodations. Assessment for
Effective Intervention, 31(1), 19
-36.
Langley, J., & Olsen, K. (2003).
Training district and state personnel on
accommodations: A study of state
practices, challenges, and resources.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., &
Thurlow, M. L. (2005). How students
access accommodations in assessment and
instruction: Results of a survey of
special education teachers (Issue
Brief 7). College Park, MD: University
of Maryland, Educational Policy Reform
Research Institute.
Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Lail,
K. E., & Christensen, L. (2009). A
longitudinal analysis of state
accommodations policies: Twelve years of
change 1993-2005. Journal of Special
Education, 43(2), 67-80.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2006).
Mathematics instructional practices and
assessment accommodations by secondary
special and general educators.
Exceptional Children, 72(2), 217
-234.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J.
(2005). Accessing the general
curriculum: Including students with
disabilities in standards-based reform
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Rhode Island Department of Education.
(2002). Rhode Island assessment
accommodation study: Research summary.
Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., &
Ysseldyke, J. E. (2003). Testing
students with disabilities: Practical
strategies for complying with district
and state requirements. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S. S., &
Christensen, L .L. (2008). Role of
assessment accommodations in
accountability. Perspectives on
Language and Literacy. 34(4),
17-20.
Thurlow, M. L., Thompson, S. J., &
Lazarus, S. S. (2006). Considerations
for the administration of tests to
special needs students: Accommodations,
modifications, and more. S. M. Downing &
T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of
test development (pp. 653-673).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
U.S. Department of Education (2002).
The no child left behind act of
2001. Elementary and secondary education
act of 1965. 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004).
Individuals with disabilities
education improvement act of 2004.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2C
U.S. Department of Education (2007).
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
from
http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/2percentReg/Federal-RegApril9TwoPercent.pdf
Top of page |
Table of Contents
Appendix A
Survey Instrument










Top of page |
Table of Contents
Appendix B
Results Disaggregated
by Classroom Setting
Table B1.Top Factors for
Decision Making on Instructional
Accommodations, Disaggregated by
Classroom Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
Facilitate
access
to
curriculum
|
47%
|
52%
|
52%
|
50%
|
36%
|
Difficulty
of
content
standards
being
taught
|
28%
|
27%
|
29%
|
29%
|
28%
|
Documentation
of
accommodations
on
previous
IEP
|
9%
|
8%
|
9%
|
8%
|
9%
|
Evidence
of
successful
prior
use of
accommodations
|
36%
|
38%
|
38%
|
37%
|
33%
|
Feasibility
of
providing
the
accommodation
|
9%
|
8%
|
10%
|
9%
|
9%
|
Percent
of time
student
is
mainstreamed
|
8%
|
8%
|
7%
|
8%
|
10%
|
School
and
staff
resources
|
8%
|
8%
|
7%
|
8%
|
9%
|
Student
is fully
included
|
5%
|
5%
|
7%
|
4%
|
3%
|
Student
is
pulled
for
special
education
services
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
4%
|
2%
|
Student’s
disability
classification
|
10%
|
11%
|
8%
|
8%
|
15%
|
Student’s
learning
style
|
28%
|
24%
|
28%
|
29%
|
30%
|
Student’s
present
level of
functioning
|
57%
|
57%
|
55%
|
58%
|
62%
|
Parental
input
|
10%
|
9%
|
8%
|
8%
|
18%
|
Student
input
|
5%
|
5%
|
5%
|
5%
|
3%
|
Teacher
input
|
14%
|
16%
|
14%
|
14%
|
14%
|
Other
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
Table B2. Considerations Reported by
Respondents as Most Important in Making
Instructional Accommodations Decisions,
Disaggregated by Classroom Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
Student
needs
that
impede
success
in the
classroom
|
23%
|
24%
|
21%
|
23%
|
22%
|
Student’s
learning
styles
|
34%
|
35%
|
35%
|
34%
|
32%
|
Subject
matter
being
taught
or
tested
|
15%
|
14%
|
17%
|
15%
|
14%
|
Student’s
characteristics
|
51%
|
53%
|
53%
|
52%
|
50%
|
Successful
classroom
accommodation
trials
|
25%
|
24%
|
24%
|
25%
|
26%
|
Student’s
performance
in the
classroom
|
12%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
16%
|
Student
data
|
26%
|
26%
|
25%
|
25%
|
29%
|
Table B3. Percentage of Respondents
Marking Specific Actions in Response to
Instructional Scenario, Disaggregated by
Classroom Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
Change
the
delivery
of
instruction
|
34%
|
35%
|
35%
|
33%
|
36%
|
Convene
IEP team
meeting
|
23%
|
21%
|
21%
|
26%
|
19%
|
Encourage
student
to pay
more
attention
during
instruction
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
2%
|
3%
|
Conduct
an
assessment
of the
student’s
present
level of
performance
|
38%
|
37%
|
34%
|
36%
|
44%
|
Meet
with the
student’s
parents
and
offer
tips for
at home
|
13%
|
12%
|
13%
|
12%
|
12%
|
Individualized
intervention
by
teacher
|
63%
|
65%
|
65%
|
65%
|
61%
|
Provide
math
instructional
accommodations
|
60%
|
62%
|
60%
|
61%
|
62%
|
Speak to
student
to find
the
cause of
the
difficulties
|
43%
|
43%
|
47%
|
43%
|
42%
|
Other
responses
|
2%
|
1%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
Table B4. Percentage of Respondents
Selecting Top Factors for Decision
Making on Assessment Accommodations,
Disaggregated by Classroom Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
Accommodation(s)
proven
successful
in class
|
44%
|
45%
|
45%
|
44%
|
44%
|
Accommodation(s)
for
instruction
|
62%
|
64%
|
66%
|
64%
|
55%
|
Difficulty
of
content
standards
being
assessed
|
9%
|
7%
|
8%
|
9%
|
13%
|
Feasibility
of
providing
the
accommodation(s)
|
7%
|
8%
|
8%
|
7%
|
5%
|
Improves
the
student’s
chances
of
passing
|
24%
|
25%
|
25%
|
24%
|
23%
|
Percent
of time
student
is
mainstreamed
|
7%
|
6%
|
6%
|
7%
|
7%
|
State
policies
and
guidelines
|
35%
|
37%
|
37%
|
36%
|
34%
|
Student’s
disability
classification
|
13%
|
14%
|
10%
|
11%
|
16%
|
Student
fully
included
in
general
education
|
5%
|
5%
|
6%
|
5%
|
3%
|
Student’s
present
level of
functioning
|
38%
|
36%
|
35%
|
39%
|
45%
|
Student
is
pulled
out for
special
education
|
4%
|
3%
|
4%
|
4%
|
4%
|
Parental
input
|
4%
|
4%
|
5%
|
5%
|
3%
|
Student
input
|
3%
|
3%
|
5%
|
4%
|
2%
|
Teacher
input
|
9%
|
8%
|
8%
|
9%
|
9%
|
Other
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
Table B5. Percentage of Respondents
Marking Specific Considerations Which
Lead to Assessment Accommodations
Decisions, Disaggregated by Classroom
Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
Student
needs
that
impede
success
in the
class
|
12%
|
10%
|
11%
|
12%
|
15%
|
Student’s
learning
styles
|
21%
|
21%
|
21%
|
22%
|
21%
|
Student
data
|
16%
|
16%
|
16%
|
15%
|
19%
|
Successful
classroom
accommodation
trials
|
49%
|
52%
|
52%
|
52%
|
46%
|
Student
characteristics
|
31%
|
30%
|
31%
|
31%
|
27%
|
Student’s
performance
in the
classroom
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
11%
|
Subject
matter
being
taught
or
tested
|
38%
|
38%
|
38%
|
37%
|
37%
|
Table B6. Percentage of Respondents
Marking Specific Actions in Response to
Assessment Scenario, Disaggregated by
Classroom Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
Call the
central
office
|
30%
|
34%
|
32%
|
32%
|
27%
|
Call the
state
department
of
education
|
14%
|
15%
|
14%
|
15%
|
16%
|
Previous
school
is
contacted
|
63%
|
64%
|
66%
|
65%
|
62%
|
Parent
is asked
|
14%
|
13%
|
14%
|
12%
|
15%
|
Student
is asked
|
8%
|
7%
|
8%
|
7%
|
8%
|
Staff is
not
available
to
provide
the
accommodations
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
Accommodated
based on
IEP from
previous
school
|
77%
|
80%
|
80%
|
78%
|
76%
|
Student
is
tested
without
accommodations
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
Student
is
tested
later
|
12%
|
11%
|
9%
|
11%
|
14%
|
Student
is not
tested
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
5%
|
Table B7. Percentage of Respondents
Using Specific Assessment
Accommodations, Disaggregated by
Classroom Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
Best
time of
day
|
18%
|
20%
|
12%
|
12%
|
31%
|
Breaks
between
subtests/during
test
|
24%
|
27%
|
22%
|
21%
|
30%
|
By
students
special
education
teacher
|
53%
|
51%
|
49%
|
51%
|
62%
|
Extended
time
limits
|
46%
|
49%
|
45%
|
43%
|
50%
|
Flexible
scheduling
|
19%
|
19%
|
14%
|
15%
|
34%
|
Directions
interpreted/signed
|
17%
|
19%
|
14%
|
14%
|
23%
|
In the
special
education
classroom
|
46%
|
40%
|
40%
|
44%
|
58%
|
Preferential
seating
|
39%
|
40%
|
36%
|
36%
|
44%
|
Small
group/individual
administration
|
67%
|
65%
|
67%
|
67%
|
71%
|
Amplification
equipment
|
7%
|
6%
|
5%
|
5%
|
9%
|
Braille
|
3%
|
4%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
Colored
overlay
|
3%
|
3%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
Large
print
|
7%
|
7%
|
5%
|
6%
|
10%
|
Magnifying
equipment
|
4%
|
4%
|
2%
|
3%
|
6%
|
Noise
buffer
|
3%
|
2%
|
1%
|
2%
|
4%
|
Templates
|
2%
|
1%
|
1%
|
1%
|
3%
|
Recording
accommodations
|
9%
|
7%
|
6%
|
6%
|
15%
|
Answers
by
machine
|
4%
|
3%
|
2%
|
3%
|
7%
|
Record
answers
in text
book
|
12%
|
13%
|
11%
|
10%
|
12%
|
Scribe
|
5%
|
4%
|
3%
|
3%
|
7%
|
Table B8. Percentage of Respondents
Marking How Accommodations are
Implemented on Test Day, Disaggregated
by Classroom Setting
|
Total
|
General
Education
Classroom
|
Co-Teaching
(Inclusion)
|
Resource
Room
|
Self-Contained
|
Number
of
responses
|
2336
|
574
|
1192
|
1427
|
522
|
A
special
test
booklet
(e.g.,
large
print)
is
provided
to the
student
on test
day
|
5%
|
6%
|
5%
|
6%
|
4%
|
Accommodations
that
require
a
special
test
booklet
may not
be
provided
|
0%
|
0%
|
1%
|
0%
|
1%
|
Data is
used to
keep
track of
individual
accommodations
|
27%
|
27%
|
27%
|
26%
|
27%
|
If at
least
one
student
in the
testing
room
needs a
specific
accommodation
is
provided
for all
students
in the
room
|
5%
|
5%
|
5%
|
4%
|
5%
|
Teacher
discusses
accommodations
with
test
administrator
and they
are
provided
on the
assessment
|
67%
|
68%
|
70%
|
71%
|
61%
|
Special
equipment
is
prepared
in
advance
and
provided
to the
student
on test
day
|
11%
|
10%
|
10%
|
10%
|
14%
|
Special
equipment
is not
available
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
0%
|
Staff
availability
determines
which
accommodations
are
provided
|
3%
|
2%
|
3%
|
2%
|
3%
|
Student
explains
to the
test
administrator
what
accommodations
he/she
needs
and they
are
provided
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
2%
|
The
student’s
teacher
administers
the test
and
provides
the
accommodations
he/she
thinks
the
student
needs
|
11%
|
8%
|
9%
|
10%
|
16%
|
Teacher
administers
the test
and
provides
the
accommodations
in the
student’s
IEP
|
54%
|
56%
|
53%
|
53%
|
57%
|
Test
administrator
has
written
documentation
of
accommodations
needs
and they
are
provided
|
66%
|
67%
|
70%
|
69%
|
59%
|
Test
administrator
provides
the
accommodations
he/she
thinks
the
student
needs
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
3%
|
4%
|
Top of page
|