Accommodations, Modifications, and Alternates for Instruction and Assessment

Maryland/Kentucky Report 5

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by John Haigh
Maryland Department of Education

December 1999

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

Haigh, J. (1999). Accommodations, modifications, and alternates for instruction and assessment (Maryland/Kentucky Report 5). 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/MdKy5.html

Overview

– C.G. Jung

As students with disabilities are increasingly included in general education testing programs, clear understanding, communication, and use of the terms accommodation, modification and alternate become important. In the current era of educational reform and new federal requirements, the importance of a clear application of these terms needs to be reviewed, especially by members of the student’s IEP team. Currently these terms may be used differently or interchangeably, and many times they have different meanings from state to state, discipline to discipline and even school to school. As more and more states include students with disabilities in their state and district-wide assessments, educators and parents will want to be clear on the language describing these various elements because they impact students and programs (see Table 1).

Table 1.  Questions to Ask to Clarify Terms Used.

Confusion sometimes occurs because all of the terms are used for instruction and assessment. With the 1997 reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97) and the appearance of all three terms, it is important that school personnel and parents agree on the definitions, uses, and implications of the terms. Not only are all three being incorporated into student IEPs, but they are also becoming items of increasing importance for restructuring efforts at the national, state, and local levels (Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Silverstein, 1993). These terms are important for all students, including students with 504 plans and students with limited English proficiency, at all levels of instruction (from pre-school to post-graduate), and for all program environments (from the general education classroom to specialized settings). When attempting to match the terms to both classroom instruction and large-scale assessments, it is critical the terms and applications are clearly understood, with agreement between parents, professionals, and policymakers.

This report provides a summary of the purpose and challenges inherent in reaching agreement on the meaning of accommodations, modifications, and alternates for assessment and instruction for special populations. The need to define these terms is expressed in many documents (see, for example, Thurlow, Ysseldyke & Olsen, 1998; Tindal, 1998; and Weston, 1999).

A suggested set of definitions from current literature and IDEA is presented. Since each of the three terms have meaning for assessment as well as instruction, they are presented with regulatory language (see Tables 2–4).

Legislative language further confuses the issue of determining what are allowable or acceptable assessment accommodations. For example, IEP definitions use the following language: "a statement of any individual modifications in the administration of State or district-wide assessments of student achievement that are needed in order for the child to participate in such assessment." 614(d)(1)(A)(iii)(v). If the modification(s) the student needs are greater than the agreed upon accommodations and are such that the test administrators/developers believe their results will be distorted, then the student may require another way of measuring progress or the construct being assessed. The construct, standard, indicators or benchmarks themselves may also need to be reviewed, extended, changed, or revised based on individual student need and or learning style. Here the purpose is critical. If the intent is individual instructional progress then modifications may be required to obtain or master a skill; if the intent is to compare results of groups of students, then a modification beyond the allowable accommodation may result in an inappropriate comparison.

Table 2. Accommodations: Meaning and Regulatory Language

When providing instructional or test accommodations for a special population student, there needs to be evidence of comparability of scores with non-accommodated students (Schmeiser, Kane, & Brennan, 1983). By the same token there must be fairness in assessments, especially if those assessments are required or used when reporting progress, or are linked to funding or accountability issues. Those issues may include: developing and choosing methods for assessment, collecting assessment information, judging and scoring student performance, summarizing and interpreting results, and reporting assessment findings (Joint Advisory Committee, 1994).

Table 3.  Modifications: Meaning and Regulatory Language

Table 4.  Alternates: Meaning and Regulatory Language

Both accommodations and modifications are referred to in IDEA 97. Specific references to those are shown in Table 5. The term accommodations refers to the assessment, while references to modifications typically refer to programs.

Table 5.  References to Accommodations and Modifications in IDEA 97

Purpose

The primary purpose for the use of accommodations, modifications, or alternatives for instruction is to enhance student learning and facilitate growth, and for assessment to benchmark progress, certification, or mastery. It is critical that instructional and assessment staff at the State, district, and school levels are in agreement on terms and implications for which accommodations to include when reporting assessment data, and any other allowable instructional modifications that are not allowed in state or district-wide assessments. Three levels of agreement need to be reached:

I. Between assessment/measurement and instructional staff on what specific accommodations are allowable (not allowable) in large-scale assessments. May include reference to, or assistance from, commercial publishers. Top down process with State or statewide stakeholder groups making initial recommendations and presenting for public comment.

II. Between assessment/measurement, instructional staff, and administrators on how to report results at each level and what are the consequences. It is important to assure that the public is aware of the differences in individual (if appropriate) and group scores and their purpose.

III. Between assessment/measurement and instructional staff on what specific accommodations are allowable (not allowable) in district-wide assessments, how they are reported, and what are the instructional consequences.

Types of Accommodations

Table 6 identifies a modified version of Maryland’s specifically defined accommodations. It presents specific descriptions of allowable assessment and instructional accommodations. The process of reaching agreement between assessment and instructional personnel produced an agreed on a set of accommodations that was annually reviewed. The document also includes information on student participation, exemption and excuse guidelines, ESOL/LEP and 504 student inclusion, specific student case study examples, documentation forms, and request for review procedures (see "other" in each category). Accommodations (YES, NO, NA) are further delineated if the assessment might be a norm referenced test (NRT), a minimum competency, or criteria for diploma test, High Stakes Student (HSS), or criteria for a large scale Accountability Assessment for Schools or programs (AAS). The chart is presented for discussion or as an initial reference for those school teams reviewing accommodations for students with special needs. Other listings or descriptions can be found with GED Testing Services, current publishers, National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO), and through other State departments of education.

Table 6. Modified Version of Maryland's Accommodations

I. Scheduling Accommodations

Is the Accommodation Permitted? (Yes, No, or NA--Not Applicable and/or Not Available.)

*Consider invalidates comparison to national norms.

II. Setting Accommodations

Is the Accommodation Permitted? (Yes, No, or NA--Not Applicable and/or Not Available.)

III. Equipment / Technology Accommodations

Is the Accommodation Permitted? (Yes, No, or NA--Not Applicable and/or Not Yet Available.)

* Entire tests are administered. Consider student’s mathematics score is invalidated in the scoring/data processing process. (Specified in the Examiners Manual as tasks that do not list calculator as a required material for the task).

**Entire tests are administered. Consider student’s language usage score is invalidated in the scoring/data processing process.

IV. Presentation Accommodations

Is the Accommodation Permitted? (Yes, No, or NA--Not Applicable and/or Not Available.)

** Entire tests are administered. Consider student’s reading score is invalidated in the scoring/data processing process.

V. Response Accommodations

Is the Accommodation Permitted? (Yes, No, or NA--Not Applicable and/or Not Available.)

** Consider students language usage score is invalidated in the scoring/process.

These accommodations can be implemented singularly or in combination as a result of analysis of the individual needs of the student. A group or team of persons should make the recommendation for types of assessment accommodations that reflect the students’ capabilities. In many cases, consultation with the student regarding the accommodation, prior to implementation, may be extremely valuable. Sometimes students will request that they not be given their accommodation; this is especially true as students reach upper grades and are tested with non-disabled peers.

Types of Modifications 

Table 7 (adapted from charts used in Pennsylvania) lists possible modifications in subject and related skill areas as well as possible materials and technologies. Types of modifications can include and extend beyond allowable assessment accommodations.

The decision to put modifications into the IEP depends on whether it is an instructional or assessment decision or a program situation as described earlier in legislation.

Table 7. Possible Modifications

Skill Area: Mathematics

Skill Area: Reading

Skill Area: Written Expression

Skill Area: Scheduling and Organization

Skill Area: Handwriting

Skill Area: Language Usage

A Word About Alternate and Alternative

An alternate assessment is a substitute way of gathering information on the performance and progress of students who do not participate in the assessments used with the majority of students who attend schools. It is an alternate to the typical state test, and generally is reserved for students who are not working toward the state standards and who are not seeking a typical diploma (Ysseldyke, 1997). An alternative assessment would be another option to the current assessment being considered by a state or school district, but it is still assessing essentially the same content and for the same purpose(s).

Alternate and alternative instruction might parallel the general program standards and benchmarks, or be an extension or separate from the general education instruction presentation depending on the needs of the individual student. Alternate assessments may be recommended in conjunction with, or as the multi-disciplinary team determines appropriate, in a format other than the general assessments. Many States are currently developing extended standards for alternate assessments. Some are developing additional standards. In Table 8 are examples of general instructional standards or indicators extended to be used as an alternate.

Table 8. Examples of Standards and Alternate Standards

In many instances there may be no general standard to meet a set of identified student goal(s). The following is an example of a separate or additional instructional standard intended to be used as an alternate beyond extending general education standards. This Personal Management standard is from Maryland’s Independence Mastery Assessment Program (IMAP) and matches components of the federal frameworks (19th Annual Report to Congress, Appendix C, 1997), specifically aspects of Social Relationships, Home, Self determination and Neighborhood and Community.

Personal Management: Students will demonstrate their ability in the following areas: personal needs, appropriate health and safety practices, managing routines, and participating in transition planning with adult service providers. Within this outcome there are a variety of indicators or benchmarks at specific age levels. These standards then become the basis for an alternate assessment.

Duration of Accommodations, Modifications, and Alternates

Instructional and assessment accommodations, modifications, and alternates can vary in duration. They may be fading, periodic, or continuous. These types relate to the degree of their application as well as their permanence relative to the student’s need.

Fading. These accommodations, modifications, and alternates have three stages and use the essence of instructional interventions: (1) introducing, (2) practicing and revising, and (3) extinguishing. The purpose of this type of accommodation, modification, or alternate is to help the student benefit from instruction until the student can independently function without its support, or continue to function after obtaining the targeted knowledge. The outcome of this most frequently used type is the eventual fading of the accommodation, modification, or alternate as the student’s system of acquiring content becomes independent. These types would primarily be used in early grades in modifications for skill and content areas. An example is extended time to complete a task.

Periodic. These accommodations, modifications, and alternates exist between fading (those anticipated to be extinguished) and the third type, continuous (those not anticipated to be extinguished). This is where the interchange between teacher and student determines what combination(s) best fit the student’s needs, where the friction point is between functioning level and skill acquisition, or the amount of support and scaffolding needed for growth and progress. The instructional purpose is to determine an appropriate set of supports and services for a comfortable independent learning level. An example is seating in the front of the room and using a phonic rather than basal approach to reading. After mastery the student may not need to sit in the front of the room, or require the phonic support.

Continuous. These are the accommodations, modifications and alternate that will seldom or never change. These may include audio amplification, the use of Braille or a wheelchair. The duration of this type is more permanent and has its own set of circumstances, which is matched to instruction and the permanence of the student’s need.

Uses of Accommodations, Modifications, and Alternates

Accommodations, modifications, and alternates can be used in several ways. The following are some of the uses to consider:

• As part of the daily instructional routine, and in classroom and school assessments.

• To provide the student an opportunity to participate; not to be used as an advantage.

• To provide the student a comfort level when using it with the intervention, and to know when it is no longer necessary.

• To provide teacher training to understand how to implement the intervention(s).

• To increase teacher awareness of when and how to modify, fade, or develop new interventions for instruction.

• To assist interventions in becoming more accepted with an increased level of understanding for all teachers to implement appropriately.

• As interventions become increasingly accepted, the community at large, including business and workplace environments, should be able to provide an appropriate range of interventions to their employees easily and cost effectively.

It is important to remember that to be useful, accommodations, modifications, or alternates must be instructionally relevant, easily applied, cost effective, and complementary to the student’s learning style.

Limitations of Accommodations, Modifications, and Alternates

There are several possible limitations in the use of accommodations, modifications and alternates. Some of these are addressed here.

Cost is one of the main limitations to accommodations, modifications, and alternates that are becoming more universally implemented. Some districts have more resources than others and tend to use the cost factor as a limitation rather than seek unique additional supports to provide what individual students need.

It is sometimes suggested that accommodations might afford the student an unfair advantage or greater opportunities to learn than are available to other students. More research must be done on score comparability and validity of certain accommodations, modifications, and alternates for both instruction and assessment.

Lack of a knowledge base on the part of the multi-disciplinary team making recommendations for particular students is an important limitation. It is important for teams to know that students’ background and learning style may limit recommendations.

Procedures and Process for Accommodation, Modifications, and Alternates

The general instructional procedure or process used by many teachers is an ongoing analytical process, with continuous reviews and self-assessment from the student. The following is a suggested process for accommodations, modifications, and alternates:

1. Analyze the instructional situation and the task/goal the student is expected to achieve.

2. Determine the student’s comfort level with the intervention and the instructional task or goal possibilities. The task may be new and the accommodation familiar, or the task may be familiar and the accommodation new. What is the risk-taking ability of the student? How is the student able to adapt in similar situations with any accommodation, modification, or alternate?

3. Maintain a student-teacher dialogue on how the student assimilated the instructional task/goal and how he/she felt about the accommodation(s), modification(s), or alternate. Continuous feedback between the teacher and the student will provide a process to continue to evaluate the efficacy of any accommodations, modifications or alternate approaches.

Matching Purposes of Assessment and Assessment Decisions

Tests traditionally have served many purposes. In Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right Questions (OTA, 1992) it was suggested that testing serves three basic functions: (1) to aid teachers and students in classroom instruction, (2) to monitor or assess systemwide outcomes and standards, and (3) to inform decisions about the selection, placement, and credentialing of individuals. The tests are similar in that they assist in decision making; however, they differ in the kinds of information they provide, the decisions that can be derived from results, and the policy or administrative constraints and guidelines under which the tests are administered (see Table 9). When the general public sees these factors becoming confused with their perception of testing, decisions and permissions regarding intentions, results, and decisions may become blurred.

With multiple purposes of testing and, especially for students with disabilities whose abilities have broad ranges, the notion exists that for some tests some students are not represented by their abilities. Students are sometimes labeled in-between, in a gray area, or are exempted from testing in general. The issue of trying to serve two or more purposes with a test can make decisions regarding accommodations, modifications, and alternatives for instruction and assessments cumbersome and confusing. IEP team members, for example, may be concerned that a student at a particular grade level but at a different skill level should be given an assessment intended for school or district accountability at an off-grade-level. Policy issues may have additional positive or negative effects on the decisions educators and parents need to make relative to testing and instructional assistance.

Table 9. Characteristics of Tests Used for Different Purposes

As previously discussed, accommodations, modifications and alternate assessments may vary as to the purpose, decisions, and policy constraints of the assessment. Depending on the framework that identifies the extent of a particular construct, standard, or outcome, decisions should be made based on those purposes. For example, writing a letter to persuade, an 8th grade outcome activity, the IEP team must ask, "Is the student in grade 8, pursuing that outcome or standard?" If the student is, then the participation question is answered. If the answer is yes, then it is also possible that the allowable accommodations, or corresponding modifications necessary for the student in instruction, may or may not be allowable for that test. If it is a classroom test it may be allowable, if it is for comparison to other student or group results, perhaps not.

Many states are currently suggesting that IEP teams ask a series of questions to determine test inclusion and appropriate accommodations. Some assumptions must be made not only about the opportunity for the student to be exposed to the content, the ability, skill level and needs of the student, but also the purpose of the test. A series of questions might be framed as follows:

1. Is the student pursuing the same standards (outcomes, constructs) and benchmarks as the other students in the classroom at the same grade level? If YES take the same test, same accommodations. If NO go to question 2.

2. Is the student pursuing the same standards (outcomes, constructs) and benchmarks as the other students in the classroom but at a different grade level? If YES take the same test, same accommodations. If NO go to question 3.

3. Is the student pursuing similar but expanded standards (outcomes, constructs) and benchmarks as some of the other students in the classroom? If YES take the same test, same accommodations. If NO go to question 4.

4. Is the student pursuing exclusively the expanded standards (outcomes, constructs) and benchmarks different (from an extended set of standards) and individualized from the other students in the classroom? If YES do not take the same test. Use the same accommodations and supports as in instruction. If NO go to question 2.

Of importance in the above series of questions to the IEP team are four underlying conditions that need to be reviewed: (1) the standards—extended or different; (2) the grade level issue—how many grades; (3) the test purpose—accountability, instruction, credentialing; and (4) appropriate accommodations. Marzano 8 Questions You Should Ask (www.mcrel.org) suggests that subject and general reasoning standards be established as the core of the curriculum; those grade level benchmarks be written for K-8 and course descriptions for high school; that a variety of frequent assessment techniques be utilized in classroom instruction; and that externally developed traditional tests and performance tests are used to compare performance of students to other students and the norming group.

The IEP team may still be left with the grade level issue. For how many grade levels might a student be pursuing a benchmark or extended benchmark and still be pursuing the same standard or construct? Applying the purpose of the test to the mix, if the intent of the test is to determine school accountability, then are the students at a grade level in line with the benchmark? Finally, are the accommodations appropriate for the student, the test, and the benchmarks? Students with disabilities may or may not require accommodations depending on instructional content, skill level, or purpose of the test. Whether or not students with disabilities should be included in the school accountability pool of test takers should be answered in the affirmative, especially if the consequences of test results will be used to make decisions about school programs and resources.

In reviewing test purpose and students with disabilities, skill level, and the benefit of inclusion in assessment both need to be analyzed carefully by the IEP team. IEP goals and State or district standards (outcomes) and benchmarks usually are not the same. IEP goals are annual goals; the standards are generally much broader. Team members will want to review the consequences of not participating in assessments as well as the consequences of participating.

In the Gray Area

As State and district-wide assessments continue to include students with disabilities, and as possible consequences for schools and students increase, students are increasingly identified as "in between" or "in a gray area" with respect to the curriculum and the testing. The first level of decisions involves a policy agreement at the state level between assessment, instruction, and special education for statewide assessments. A second level of decisions involves district and classroom policy and procedures for including students with disabilities in testing and instruction.

According to recent Reports to Congress, the most prevalent disabilities, and the approximate percentages in each are:

• 52% Learning Disabilities

• 22% Speech

• 12% Mentally Retarded

• 14% Other

Of these groups, students with learning disabilities and those receiving speech services could reasonably be considered. Of the remaining two categories, it has been estimated that only less than 2% (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Erickson, Gabrys, Haigh, Trimble & Gong, 1998) could be reasonably considered for the alternate assessment. This leaves approximately 24% of students who might reasonably be considered for a specific situation of assessment or instruction "between" the current general range of instruction and individual instructional level needed for a particular student.

Using the scenario of a State, school, or district accountability assessment, one would want all students with disabilities to participate, 98% or more in the regular assessment, with accommodations if necessary, and 2% or less in an alternate assessment. In this instance there would be no students "between," they should all be included as part of the assessment. A second scenario of student accountability for passing a standard or test for graduation, one would want all students to pursue the standard, for example, a diploma or certificate, with accommodations if necessary. In this instance there would also be no students "between," they should all be included as pursuing graduation. The third scenario, current instructional level, is situational and conceivably any students could be "between," requiring accommodations and or modifications as necessary to master the instructional content. Labeling students as "between" does not appear to help in either identifying or assisting the student with special needs.

Discussion

Both regulations and practice have made a distinction between accommodations and modifications. Accommodations are more assessment- or test-centered. They ask the questions, "Can this intervention be used while maintaining reliability and validity?" "Is the ‘playing field level’ for all students when some are given accommodations?" The accommodations are thus assessment- or test-centered interventions that may or may not be allowed in the testing situation.

Modifications are more instructional- or program-centered. They ask the questions, "What are the array of interventions necessary for the student to master a topic or subject?" Is this all that can be employed to ensure the best learning environment?" The modifications are thus instruction- or program-centered interventions that best provide fertile ground for learning.

There are obviously many interventions that are appropriate for both classroom and assessment applications. For testing, accommodations here have been referring to more large-scale, national, state or district-wide assessments, while modifications have been viewed as more classroom ongoing instructional interventions and assessments. While accommodations have been generally accepted test variations, extended time, marking in test booklet, large print, etc., modifications should by their nature be boundless, whatever is possible that provides positive results for learning. The similarity of the terms accommodations and modifications and the interchanging use of the two has led to some confusion.

The following is a typical policy determination: "If the student needs an accommodation (generally accepted test variation) and it is on their IEP and is used in instruction, then they can employ that accommodation in testing situations." If what happens is that more and more IEPs include accommodations, they may de facto limit instruction to accommodation interventions.

Both accommodations and modifications should be discussed and reviewed in the broad context of progressing in the general education program. Teachers, parents, and policymakers should be aware and make aware to the public the differences in learning and the variation of methodology necessary to allow an opportunity for learning for all students.

References

Bechard, S. (1998). Accommodations to improve learning and performance: Leader’s guide. Colorado Department of Education. Denver, CO.

Brauen, M., O’Reilly, F., Heid, C., Gentry, R., & Morrissey, P. (1994). Assessment guidelines: Outcomes-based accountability for students with disabilities. Westat.

Brown, G. E. (1992). Testing in American schools: Asking the right questions. Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, D.C.

DeStefano, L. (1993). The effects of standards and assessment on students in special education (Synthesis Report 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Edwards, F. Test administration procedures for adults with disabilities. Graduate Education Diploma, (GED). Form L-15 Accommodations Request for Learning Disabilities and/or Attention Deficit with/or without Hyperactivity Disorder. Washington, D.C.

Gloecker, L., et.al. Test Access and Modification for Individuals with Disabilities. (1995). University of the State of New York, State Education Agency, Office of Vocational and Educational Services and Office for Special Education Services. Albany N.Y.

Haigh, J., & Rosenberg, K. (1998). Requirements for accommodating, excusing, and exempting students in Maryland assessment programs. Maryland State Department of Education.

Hargest, J., et.al. (1998). Accommodations and modifications guide. Harford County Public Schools, Office of Special Education Programs. Harford County Public Schools, Harford County, MD.

Healy, S. (1998). State of the art: Toward ensuring classroom success for every student, a handbook for educators. Office of Instruction and Program Development, Department of Academic Programs. Montgomery County Public Schools, Montgomery County, MD.

Joint Advisory Committee. (1994). Principles for fair student assessment practices for education in Canada. Edmonton, Alberta: Author.

Jung, C. G. (1954). C. G. Jung Psychology and Education, extracted from The Development of Personality Volume 17, Collected Works. Translated by R. F. C. Hull. Bollingen Series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.

Modifications. Pennsylvania State Department of Education Handout.

Schmeister, C. B., Kane, M. T., & Brennan, R. L. (1983). Testing the handicapped: An issue of comparability. The Bar Examiner, 16-23.

Tindal, J. (1998). Determining when accommodated test administrations are comparable to standard test administrations. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, D.C.

Thurlow, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Olsen, K. (1998). Self-study guide for the development of statewide assessments that include students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Weston, T. (1999, CCSSO). Reporting issues and strategies for disabled students in large scale Aassessments. Washington, D.C.

Top of page