by Martha L. Thurlow, Allison L. Seyfarth, Dorene L. Scott, and James E. Ysseldyke
Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes
September 1997
Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Thurlow, M.L., Seyfarth, A., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1997). State Assessment policies on participation and accomodations for students with disabilities: 1997 update (Synthesis Report No. 29). 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/Synthesis29.html
Executive Summary
States' policies on the participation of students with disabilities in district or state assessments, and the accommodations available in those assessments, continue to change rapidly. Legislation (IDEA, Title I), research funding, and states' ongoing work on these issues are promoting the participation of students with disabilities in the assessments. In this report, we summarize states' current policies on the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment, and the accommodations available for those students. Among the generalizations from these summaries are that:
• State participation and accommodation policies change frequently.
• For participation decisions, state policies often rely on the IEP team and the involvement of parents.
• Many policies indicate that states have begun to offer partial participation in testing or alternate assessments for students with disabilities.
• Testing accommodations have become very common, with nearly every state with a policy offering some accommodations.
• The most commonly offered accommodations include Braille or large-print editions of tests, the use of a proctor or scribe, extended time, and allowing for individual or small group administration of assessments. The accommodations that are most controversial (i.e., offered by some states and prohibited by others) include reading a test aloud and use of calculators.
States that offer both norm-referenced tests and criterion-referenced tests will generally offer more accommodations in their criterion-referenced tests than in their norm-referenced tests. The accommodations available for these two types of tests are most similar for setting accommodations (e.g., administering an assessment individually, in small groups, or in an alternate location).
.
Some Information on Statewide Assessments
Statewide assessments are common in the United States. Most often, they are tests or other performance measures that are intended to document the educational achievement of the students in a state. In 1996, 48 states reported that they either had a state assessment in place or were developing one. Iowa and Wyoming were the only states without a statewide assessment in development or in place (see Figure 1) (Bond, Braskamp, & Roeber, 1996).
Despite the prevalence of statewide tests, there remains a lack of state level information on the performance of students with disabilities (see Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Shin, & Coleman, 1997). There probably are many reasons for this (see Elliott, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1996), but primary among them are state policies. State policies, in turn, must be viewed within the context of the variations in state assessments.
Figure 1. Status of Statewide Assessments
(from Bond et al., 1996)
Statewide assessments vary widely across the states that use them. One of the variants is the number of tests that make up the assessment program in a state. Some states, such as North Dakota, administer one test to their students, while other states, such as Maryland, administer four or more tests to students throughout their schooling. Another related issue is the content areas tested. Different content areas may be presented as separate tests or as subtests of a larger test. Nearly all states include assessments of English or language arts, mathematics, and writing. Fewer states assess science and social studies. Some states assess other areas, such as citizenship and geography. The types of assessments used are another source of variability among states. Some states use traditional multiple-choice tests, while others use constructed response, portfolios, performance events, writing samples, or other forms of student assessment. Many states use a combination of various types of assessments.
Another way in which assessments differ is in the unit of comparison. Norm-referenced tests are tests in which students' results are compared to those of a normative group. Examples of these assessments include the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills and the California Achievement Test. Criterion-referenced tests, in contrast, involve comparing students' results to previously set standards. Criterion-referenced tests tend to be tests that are state designed, such as Hawaii's Test of Essential Competencies. Some states use norm-referenced tests exclusively, others use criterion-referenced tests exclusively, and a third group uses some combination of both measures.
As statewide assessments become more common, their complexities become more obvious. Some of the complexity involves what cognitive skill will be tested, even when the content area is the same. For example, for a reading test, assessors must decide whether ability to decode or to comprehend text is being measured. Another complexity is how to test, which involves some of the issues addressed above, as well as how to make modifications or accommodations to tests or the testing environment to enable students with disabilities or students with limited English proficiency to participate in testing. A third complexity is who to test, whether to include students with disabilities, and what such decisions mean for those students and their families.
What We Know About Who Gets Tested and How
For a number of years, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been examining who gets tested, and how tests are given to students with disabilities. This work revealed some important trends over time. In the early 1990s, McGrew, Thurlow, Shriner, and Spiegel (1992) looked at the participation of students with disabilities in both national and statewide assessment, and found that 34 out of the 49 reporting states had formal or written decision rules on the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments. In 1993, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, and Silverstein examined the literature on testing accommodations for students with disabilities, and updated and added to the earlier work on states' policies. Common testing accommodations were discussed in the report, as well as policy, legal, and psychometric considerations when using accommodations. In addition, a classification system was used for the different types of accommodations commonly offered. The four classes of accommodations included: presentation format, which were changes in how tests were presented and involved accommodations like providing Braille versions of the tests or orally reading the directions to students; response format, which were changes in the manner in which students gave their responses and included accommodations such as having a student point to a response or use a computer for responding; setting of the test, which could be at home, or in small groups; and finally, timing of the test, which could include extending the time allowed, or providing more breaks during testing.
Thurlow et al. (1993) provided information from a sample of states on their participation policies (who should participate in their statewide tests) and their accommodations policies (which accommodations could be used during testing). In 1993, there were 28 states with written policies on the participation of students with disabilities in their tests. At this time, there was a great deal of variability in the types of decision rules states had for the participation of students with disabilities. Some of the factors commonly considered at that time included the type of disability the student had, the degree of the student's impairment, and the percentage of time the student was mainstreamed or receiving special services. Rules sometimes called for looking at only one of these variables, but more commonly at a combination of the variables.
At the time the 1993 report was published, there were 21 states with written policies on accommodations. Again, there was a great deal of variability across states in the accommodations that were allowed. The types of accommodations that were most frequently allowed, and prohibited, were changes to the presentation format. Presentation format changes most frequently allowed included offering Braille or large-print versions of the tests. Those most frequently prohibited included oral reading, video, or signed presentations of the tests.
In 1995, NCEO updated the 1993 information in two separate reports. The report on participation reproduced and summarized information from the states' written guidelines on the participation of students with disabilities in their state tests (Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995b). The number of states with written guidelines increased from the 28 in 1993 to 43 in 1995. Noteworthy variables mentioned most by states in the 1995 report were the involvement of the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) team in making decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in testing, the role of parents, issues related to partial testing, the placement or category of disability of the student, and the reporting of the students' results.
Policies for accommodations were also re-examined in 1995, with a total of 38 written guidelines provided by states, up from the 1993 total of 21 guidelines (Thurlow, Scott, & Ysseldyke, 1995a). Again, a number of accommodations proved controversial. Use of a scribe, in which a student can give answers to a person (scribe) who will write them down, was explicitly prohibited in one state, and allowed in 15 other states. The use of a calculator during testing was prohibited by five states and allowed by four states. Finally, reading a test aloud was prohibited by nine states and allowed by two states (this often depended on whether it was the reading test or other content area). Overall, while most states offered accommodations, there was little consistency in the apparent acceptability of various accommodations. Almost every state had revised its guidelines between the publication of the 1993 and 1995 reports.
The Need to Update What We Know
Since 1995, interest in state assessments, participation of students with disabilities in them, and use of accommodations has increased exponentially. New special interest groups have been set up on this topic, such as one of the Council of Chief State School Officers' (CCSSO) Special Education State Collaboratives on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS), which focuses on students with disabilities and assessment. This has allowed a number of states and policy organizations to come together to wrestle with challenges, bring the latest information to the table, and produce helpful products to address such issues.
In part, increased interest in state assessment is due to the reauthorization of laws (e.g., Title I, IDEA), research, and states' applied experience. Both Title I and IDEA now require the participation of students with disabilities in state and district assessments, with accommodations when needed and appropriate. In addition, federal education agencies are providing research funds to explore ways to increase participation and examine the effects of accommodations. Both the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) have conducted two rounds of funding for projects to address these issues. There is a new realization that there are negative consequences for having accountability systems that do not include all students. Among the most commonly recognized is the increasing rate of referral to special education that occurs when students with disabilities can be exempted from tests that are seen as high stakes for schools or districts (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1992; Zlatos, 1994).
Updating Procedures
To update the NCEO files on state participation and accommodations policies, we first made a decision about the conditions under which we would call for more recent information. If we had a policy document with a date more recent than 1995, or if the state did not have a statewide assessment, we did not attempt to update our files. Forty states in all were contacted. Upon completion of our analysis, all 50 states were provided with copies of summary tables for feedback (including previous information for states that we did not update). We accepted new documents through mid-March, 1997. In total, we updated 34 policies on participation and 32 policies on accommodations. A complete list of the policy documents is in the appendix.
In 1995, the text of all relevant state policies was included in the updates, with highlights presented prior to the actual policies. In this report, we have created tables that summarize the policies. In Table 1, we provide the definitions that we used when deciding whether a state's policy included language referring to a specific category in the tables.
Presenting policy information in tables makes the information easier to use, but sometimes obscures the complexity that underlies the policies. For example, the length and detail of the original source documents, which ranged from one sentence to 40 pages, is not apparent. Another difference is the specificity of the documents to the tests given. Some states, such as Maryland, specify accommodations for each test individually, while other states, such as Georgia, provide accommodations guidelines, but do not make them specific to the different tests given in the state.
After summarizing in table format the documents received from states, we sent a summary table for states to approve. States could indicate that there were no changes needed, ask for more information in order to decide whether the tables were accurate, or change the tables. If states indicated the need for a change after reviewing the summary table, we requested written documentation before making changes.
The information collected is summarized in two sets of tables in this reportÑone set for participation policies and a second for accommodation policies. Reporting policies, which were addressed previously by Thurlow et al. (1995b) are not included here. Instead, a separate analysis of state accountability reports has been conducted by NCEO (Thurlow, Langenfeld, Nelson, Shin, & Coleman, 1997).
|
|
| Category | Definition |
| Participation Criteria | |
| Course or Curricular Validity | Decision about participation is based, in part or in whole, on whether the student received course or content areas covered by the assessment, or whether the assessment provides a valid measure of the student's curriculum. |
| IEP | Decision about participation is based, in part or in whole, on what the IEP team recommends. This recommendation may or may not be based on other variables. |
| Parent/Guardian | Decision is based specifically on the parents' desires, or must be specifically signed off by the parents. |
| Receiving Special Education Services/Percent Time | Decision about participation is based, in part or in whole, on whether the student receives special education services, what kind of services the student receives, or the percentage of time that the student receives special education services. |
| Yields Valid and Reliable Measure | Decision about participation is based, in part or in whole, on whether the score that would be derived from the student's participation, with or without accommodations, is deemed (by opinion or research) to be valid and/or reliable. |
| Other | Includes a variety of other possible determining factors (e.g., certification of a medical condition, parent or guardian assumes student is in a regular classroom). |
| Additional Testing Options | |
| Out-of-Level Testing | Student may take the assessment designated for a lower level than the one in which he or she actually receives instruction. |
| Partial Participation | Student may take certain parts of the assessment, without being required to take others. Sometimes this means the student participates only in tests covering certain content areas. Sometimes it means that the student takes only certain subtests of an assessment. |
| Alternate Assessment | Student participates in a different assessment designed specifically for a subgroup of students. This includes assessments designed for students with severe cognitive disabilities in some states, and assessments for students who have not passed a graduation exam in others. |
| Broad Areas of Accommodations Allowed and Other Considerations in Decision Making | |
| Presentation Accommodations | Changes made to the presentation of the test or test directions. |
| Response Accommodations | Changes made to the way students respond to a test question or prompt. |
| Scheduling Accommodations | Changes in the timing or scheduling of testing. |
| Setting Accommodations | Changes to the testing environment or location a test is offered. |
| Used for Instruction | A general guideline that is used to indicate that any accommodation that is used during instruction is also allowed during assessment. Sometimes this general guideline is qualified, such as when it is stipulated that the instructional accommodation may only be allowed for assessment if it does not change the construct being assessed. |
| IEP Determined | A general guideline that is used to indicate that the specific accommodations allowed for an individual student are to be determined by an IEP team. Sometimes this guideline stands alone, without any other guidelines from the state; in other cases, this guideline is used within the framework of specific guidelines on allowable accommodations. |
|
||
| Presentation Accommodations | ||
| Read Aloud | All of the assessment is read to the student (directions and items), or just part of the assessment is read to the student (e.g., directions). | |
| Sign Language | All of the assessment (directions and items) is presented to the student via sign language (or other version, such as cued speech, signed English, etc.), or just part of the assessment is presented to the student via sign language (or other version such as cued speech, signed English, etc.). | |
| Braille | All parts of the assessment are presented in Braille. | |
| Large Print | All parts of the assessment are presented in large print. | |
| Clarify Directions | Directions may be clarified through restatement for the student either in response to the administrators' decision that clarification is needed for all directions, or in response to student questions. | |
| Administered by Other | Someone other than the regular test administrator gives test to student. Examples of this accommodation include administration by a special or regular education teacher, or other school personnel. | |
| With Assistance | Someone is available to help the student during the testing, such as an aide. | |
| Equipment | Variety of equipment options used to present the test materials, including compu-ters, use of magnification equipment, auditory enhancers, noise buffers, and so on. | |
| Other | All other types of accommodations that involve the way in which the assessment is presented. | |
| Presentation Equipment Accommodations | ||
| Magnification Equipment | Equipment that enlarges the print size of the test. | |
| Amplification Equipment | Equipment that increases the level of sound during the test (e.g., FM systems, hearing aids). | |
| Noise Buffer | Ear mufflers, white noise, and other equipment used to block external sounds. | |
| Templates | Placemarkers or templates used to mark location of focus on the test. | |
| Abacus | Abacus, or similar counting tools. | |
| Audio/Video Cassette | Test is presented through audio or video equipment (e.g., an audiotaped presentation or videotaped presentation). | |
| Lighting/Acoustic | Changes to the amount or placement of lighting or special attention to the acoustics of the test setting. | |
| Computer/Machine | Computer or other mechanical aid (e.g., slide projector) is used to present test. | |
| Response Accommodations | ||
| Communication Device | Various communication devices (e.g., symbol boards) for the student to use in giving responses. | |
| Computer or Machine | Computer or other machine (e.g., typewriter) | |
| Spell Checker | Spell checker either as separate device or within word processing program; could also include print materials (e.g., glossary, dictionary) | |
| Brailler | Brailler device or computer that generates response in Braille. | |
| Tape Recorder | Students' verbal responses are tape recorded, generally for later transcription. | |
| Calculator | Standard calculator and special function calculators. Sometimes one is allowed but not the other. | |
| Write in Test Booklet | Student is allowed to write responses to items in the test booklet rather than on sheets (usually bubble format sheets) that are used by most students. | |
| Proctor/Scribe | Student is allowed to respond verbally and a proctor or scribe then translates this to an answer sheet. | |
| Pointing | Student is allowed to point to their response, and generally a staff member translates onto an answer sheet. | |
| Other | All other types of accommodations that involve the way in which the student responds to the assessment are included here. Among popular "other" response accommodations are sign language (student responds by signing answers), use of lined paper, and use of a large print booklet. | |
|
||
| Scheduling Accommodations | ||
| Extended Time | Student is allowed to take longer than is typically allowed for administration of the assessment. Sometimes the amount of extended time is specifically designated. | |
| With Breaks | Breaks are allowed during assessments that typically are administered without breaks. Sometimes specific conditions are placed on when the breaks can occur (e.g., between subtests and not within subtests), and how long they are to be. | |
| Time Beneficial to Student | Assessment is administered at a time that is most advantageous for the student. Often, this accommodation relates to medication administration schedules. | |
| Student can no Longer Sustain Activity | The test administrator is allowed to stop the testing when the student demonstrates that he or she needs to stop. | |
| Multiple Sessions | Assessments that are generally given in a single session are broken into multiple sessions so that student has breaks. | |
| Over Multiple Days | Assessment is administered over several days when it is normally administered in one day. | |
| Other | All other types of accommodations that involve the scheduling of the assessment are included here. An example of this kind of accommodation is allowing the student to take the subtests of an assessment in a different order from that typically followed. | |
| Setting Accommodations | ||
| Individual | Student is assessed separately from other students. | |
| Carrel | Student is assessed while seated in a study carrel. | |
| Small Group | Student is assessed with a small group, separately from other students. | |
| Special Education Class | Student is assessed in special education classroom. This accommodation usually implies an individual or small group administration. | |
| Student's Home | Student is assessed at home. This is often offered when a student is placed out of their home school, for illness or other reasons. | |
| Separate Room | Student is assessed in a separate room. This accommodation usually implies an individual or small group administration. | |
| Seat Location/ Proximity | Student is assessed in a specifically designated seat location, usually in close proximity to test administrator. | |
| Hospital | Student is assessed in a hospital setting, generally due to an illness or injury. | |
| Other | All other types of accommodations that involve the setting in which the student participates in the assessment are included here. Included here is hospital settings. | |
Participation Policies
Currently, 40 of the 50 states have active policies on the participation of students with disabilities in statewide testing (see Figure 2). There are a number of reasons why states may not have active policies on participation. They might not have statewide assessments, or they could have assessments without having any policies in place. Other states have had their assessments suspended, and are in the development phase of new assessments and new guidelines. Still other states have had guidelines, but are currently in the process of revising them. For this document, we included only policies that are currently in use. Thus, if a state has a policy that is currently undergoing revision we did not include it in this report.
Figure 2. Status of Statewide Assessment and Participation Guidelines
Table 2 summarizes the variables included in the participation policies in each state. Note that we have used an asterisk (*) in this table to indicate that the specific criterion applies to only part of the assessment system in the state (e.g., it may apply to one test but not another or only under certain circumstances). It is evident in this table that nearly all states with assessment policies in place use the IEP team's decision as one of the primary criteria to determine whether a student participates in the statewide assessment. Of the specific criteria listed in the table, course content or curricular validity is the next most frequent criterion. Relatively uncommon (less than one-fourth of the states with criteria) are criteria referring to the technical characteristics of measures (validity or reliability) or the special education services received. Just slightly over one-fourth of the states with policies specifically referred to the role of the parent/guardian in the decision-making process, with one state specifically prohibiting their involvement.
|
||||||
Course Content or Curricular Validity |
IEP |
Parent/Guardian |
Receiving Sp. Ed. Services/% Time |
Yields Valid and Reliable Measure |
Other |
|
| AL | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| AK | X |
X |
||||
| AR | X* |
O* |
X* |
X* |
||
| CT | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| DE | X |
X |
X |
|||
| FL | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
|||
| HI | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| ID | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| IL | X |
X |
||||
| IN | X |
X |
||||
| KS | X |
|||||
| KY | X |
X |
X |
|||
| LA | X |
X |
X* | |||
| ME | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| MD | X* |
X* |
X |
|||
| MI | X |
|||||
| MN | X |
X |
||||
| MS | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|
| MO | X* |
|||||
| MT | X* |
|||||
| NV | X* |
X* |
||||
| NH | X |
X |
X* |
|||
| NJ | X |
X |
X |
|||
| NM | X |
|||||
| NY | X |
|||||
| NC | X |
X |
||||
| ND | X |
X |
||||
| OH | X |
X* |
||||
| OK | X |
X |
||||
| OR | X |
X |
X |
|||
| PA | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
| RI | X |
X |
||||
| SC | X* |
X* |
||||
| SD | X* |
X* |
||||
| TN | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| TX | X |
X |
X |
|||
| UT | X |
X |
||||
| WA | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|
| WI | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|
Note: Ten states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VT, VA and WV were drafting guidelines.
† Kentucky does not allow any exclusion. Guidelines determine placement in the regular assessment or the alternate assessment.
X = criterion used
O = criterion may not be used
* = true only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 3 for specification of tests.
Next to the IEP, "other" criteria were the most frequently found in our analysis of state guidelines. This reflects the tremendous variability in specific criteria included within state policies. We have summarized the "other" criteria used by states in Table 3, along with specifications noted for the Table 2 criteria (i.e., explanation of asterisks).
Perhaps most obvious in Table 3 is the diversity of other criteria that states use, from requiring certification of a medical condition to examining the motivation of a student to be like her or his peers. The most frequently mentioned "other" criterion refers to the meaningfulness of testing for the studentsÑseven states have criteria that allow for exclusion of a student if the results are anticipated to reflect the disability rather than the student's ability. Other frequently mentioned criteria involve (a) the exclusion of a student with disabilities based on a specific disability (some allowing that as a reason to exclude, others disallowing it), (b) concerns about whether testing might adversely affect a student, and (c) issues of whether appropriate accommodations are available.
|
||
| Specifications | Other Criteria | |
| AL | Practice in testing in similar format & content | |
| AK | Exclude if test results are meaningless | |
| AR | Course content–SAT; Parent/Guardian- Not Allowed, SAT; Rec. Spec. Ed./% Time-SAT; No partial testing allowed–SAT |
No accommodations allowed-SAT |
| CT | Student unable to participate meaningfully in testing; Test situations adversely affect student | |
| DE | Specific handicap/severity of disability; Student unable to participate meaningfully in testing | |
| FL | Course Content–High School Competency Test (HSCT); IEP–HSCT | Exemption ok if results of testing will reflect student's impairment instead of student's achievement-HSCT |
| GA | Not based on specific handicap or severity of disability | |
| HI | IEP-SAT; Parent/Guardian–SAT; Rec. Spec. Ed./% Time–SAT | |
| LA | Type of spec. ed. prog. if student is in specially designed regular instructional programs; Student must have grade-level skills to be tested; Specific categories coded as spec. ed.-LA Educational Assessment Program | |
| ME | IEP–Maine Educational Assessment (MEA); Validity/Reliability–MEA | Exclusion only appropriate if assessment will not yield a valid indication of functioning in specific area-MEA |
| MD | Course Content–Maryland School Perform-ance Assessment Project; IEP–Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) & MD Functional Testing Program (MFT) | Test situations adversely affect student |
| Table 3, cont. | ||
| Specifications | Other Criteria | |
| MS | Course content–Subject Area Tests, ITBS, Test of Achievement and Proficiency; IEP–Functional Literacy Examination (FLE); Parent/ Guardian–FLE; Rec. Spec. Ed./% Time–ITBS, and Test of Achievement and Proficiency | Appropriate accommodations exist-ITBS, and Test of Achievement and Proficiency |
| MO | IEP–Missouri Mastery Achievement Test | |
| MT | Rec. Spec. Ed./% Time–Standardized Achievement Testing | |
| NV | Course content–Terra Nova; IEP–Terra Nova & High School Proficiency Exam Program | |
| NH | Local school team decides about exclusion-New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program; Excl. appr. only if assess will not yield a valid indication of how a student functions in a given content area-New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program | |
| NJ | Test will have an adverse effect on student | |
| OH | Each school district must adopt policies and procedures; Certification of a med. cond. req.-Norm Referenced Achievement Tests | |
| PA | Course content–Pennsylvania System of School Assessment; IEP–PA System of School Assessment; Parent/Guardian-PA System of School Assessment | Extended Absence-Pennsylvania System of School Assessment; Specific handicap/severity of disability-Pennsylvania System of School Assessment; Test situations adversely affect student-PA System of School Assessment |
| SC | IEP–Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP) (Gr. 3, 6, 8) | Do not test homebound, expelled students. 504 Plan says no testing Not required to test expelled students-BSAP (Gr. 3, 6, 8) |
| SD | IEP–SAT | Student must be able to test in prescribed standard-ized group testing conditions, no accommodations allowed-SAT |
| TN | IEP–TN Comprehensive Assessment Program & TCAP/CT (Competency Test); Validity/ Reliability–TCAP & TCAP/CT (Competency Test) | Student couldn't complete test-TCAP & TCAP/CT (Competency Test) |
| UT | Very limited English proficiency; Student incapable of participating meaningfully | |
| WA | Course content–CTBS/4; IEP–CTBS/4; Parent/Guardian–CTBS/4; Validity/ Reliability–CTBS/4 | Student tested if parent or guardian assumes student is in a regular classroom-CTBS/4 |
| WI | Course content–1996 Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test; IEP–1996 Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test; Parent/ Guardian–1996 Wisconsin Reading Compre-hension Test; Validity/Reliability–1996 Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test | Child's reading proficiency within range of "regular" 3rd grade reading program. The child is motivated to be like his peers. The information from testing is useful to the school. Appropriate accommodations exist-1996 Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test |
In Table 4, we sum up additional testing options that some states make available: out-of-level testing, partial participation in testing, and alternate assessment. Partial participation appears to be the most popular of the three options, with about 40% of states with policies providing this option for students with disabilities. Out-of-level testing and alternate assessments are significantly less popular. A total of five states (over 10% of the 40 states with policies) allow out-of-level testing while another five disallow the practice. According to the state policy documents gathered for this report, alternate assessment is currently available or in development in eight of the 40 states that have participation policies (20% of states with policies). One example of an alternate assessment is Kentucky's Alternate Portfolio Assessment program (Ysseldyke et al., 1996). This is a program designed for students with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities that prevent them from completing a regular course of study even with modifications. These students are assessed using a portfolio composed of their best classroom work. This is intended to document their progress toward Kentucky's academic expectations for students in the alternate assessment system.
Accommodations Policies
Currently, 39 of the 50 states have active policies on accommodations (see Figure 3). There are a number of reasons why states might not have active policies on accommodations. Some states have assessment systems, but are currently developing or revising their accommodations guidelines. Other states do not have assessment systems in place, sometimes due to suspension of the system. For the purposes of this document we included only policies that are currently in use. States with policies currently under revision (or that were not approved by March, 1997) were not included.
Table 5 summarizes information on accommodations policies in four areas (presentation, response, setting, scheduling), plus two other factors commonly considered in making accommodations decisions (used for instruction, IEP determined). In this table the information is presented at the broadest level (i.e., are there any accommodations allowed in each of the major types?). When viewed this way, nearly every state allows some accommodations of nearly every type (note that those cells with XO indicate that an accommodation is both allowed and prohibited). Of the 39 states with specific accommodations policies (South Dakota allows no accommodations), 31 offer some accommodations of nearly every type, nearly 80% of states with policies. The rare exceptions are states like Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, and Vermont, which do not list accommodations but instead indicate that the decision is IEP-determined and/or the accommodation is one used for instruction. In a couple of states (Indiana, Oklahoma) accommodations are allowed in all areas except one.
|
|||
Out-of-Level Testing |
Partial Participation |
Alternate Assessment |
|
| AL | A |
A |
A |
| AK | |||
| AR | NA |
||
| CT | A |
A |
|
| DE | |||
| FL | |||
| GA | A |
||
| HI | |||
| ID | |||
| IL | NA |
A |
|
| IN | |||
| KS | A |
||
| KY | NA |
A |
A |
| LA | A |
||
| ME | A |
||
| MD | NA |
A |
A (field testing) |
| MI | A |
A |
|
| MN | |||
| MS | |||
| MO | |||
| MT | A |
||
| NV | NA |
A |
|
| NH | A |
||
| NJ | A |
A |
|
| NM | A |
||
| NY | |||
| NC | A |
A |
|
| ND | A |
||
| OH | A |
||
| OK | |||
| OR | A |
||
| PA | |||
| RI | |||
| SC | |||
| SD | |||
| TN | NA |
NA |
|
| TX | A |
||
| UT | |||
| WA | |||
| WI | (Reads at grade level) |
||
Note: Ten states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VA and WV were drafting guidelines; VT did not respond.
A = available
NA = not available
Figure 3. Status of Statewide Assessment and Accommodation Guidelines
|
||||||
Other |
||||||
Presentation |
Response |
Setting |
Scheduling |
Used for Instruction |
IEP Determined |
|
| AL | XO |
X |
X |
X |
||
| AK | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| AR | XO |
X |
X |
XO |
||
| CT | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| DE | XO |
XO |
X |
XO |
||
| FL | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| GA | XO |
X |
X |
XO |
X |
|
| HI | XO |
XO |
X |
XO |
X |
|
| ID | X |
X |
X |
|||
| IL | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| IN | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| KS | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| KY | X |
X |
||||
| LA | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| ME | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| MD | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| MI | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| MN | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| MS | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| MO | X |
|||||
| MT | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| NV | XO |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
|
| NH | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| NJ | XO |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
|
| NM | X |
|||||
| NY | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| NC | XO |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| ND | X |
X |
||||
| OH | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| OK | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| OR | XO |
X |
X |
X |
||
| PA | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| RI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| SC | X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| SD | NO ACCOMMODATIONS ALLOWED |
|||||
| TN | XO |
X |
X |
XO |
||
| TX | XO |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
| WA | XO |
X |
X |
XO |
||
| WI | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
Note: Eleven states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VT, VA and WV were drafting guidelines; UT had no guidelines.
X = Accommodation allowed
O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
Presentation Accommodations
Table 6 includes a more detailed listing of presentation accommodations. These alter the presentation of the test or test directions. Examples of these accommodations might be providing a large-print version of the test, or reading the test aloud to a student. Evident in this table is that presentation accommodations are widely allowed by states, with Braille or large-print editions of the tests most commonly offered (31 and 32 states offering them, respectively). Reading the test aloud is one of the most controversial accommodations. Approximately 23% (9 of the 39 states with policies) offer reading aloud with no restrictions, another 41% (16 of the 39 states with policies) offer reading aloud with some restrictions (examples include not reading the reading test aloud or only reading the directions aloud), and another 8% (three states) completely prohibit reading aloud. Equipment accommodations frequently mentioned by states are detailed in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 7 is a summary of presentation equipment accommodations, which involve providing specific equipment as part of the presentation of the test. Examples of these accommodations include providing magnifying equipment, or providing altered lighting or acoustics for taking the test. Frequently mentioned presentation equipment accommodations include magnification equipment, amplification equipment, templates, lighting or acoustic alterations, and using a computer or machine in the presentation.
Table 8 is a listing of all other types of presentation accommodations allowed by states (for those states with "Other" noted in Table 6), as well as specifications about tests to which accommodation policies apply. These "other" accommodations further reflect the variability in state policies on accommodations, with available accommodations including underlining verbs in instructions, providing adaptive or special furniture, using specific types of pencils, and making practice tests available.
Response Accommodations
Response accommodations are summarized in Table 9. This table includes many different ways students could respond to a test, for example, writing in test booklets, pointing, or using a tape recorder to record their responses. Again, the variability is very evident, particularly for the accommodation of providing a calculator, with 10 of the 39 states with policies (approximately 26%) allowing calculator use, another 10 (approximately 26%) allowing use with some restrictions (e.g., the IEP specifies calculator use as a goal), and two (approximately 5%) specifically prohibiting the use of calculators. The use of a proctor or scribe was the most frequently mentioned accommodation in this table, with nearly three-quarters of the states with policies allowing the accommodation (though two of states did have some restrictions on their use).
|
|||||||||
Read Aloud |
Sign Language |
Braille |
Large Print |
Clarify Directions |
Admin. by Other |
With Assistance (e.g., aide) |
Equipment |
Other |
|
| AL | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
| AK | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| AR | XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||||
| CT | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
| DE | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
X |
||
| FL | XO |
X* |
X |
X |
X* |
XO* |
X |
||
| GA | XO |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| HI | O |
X* |
X |
X |
XO* |
X |
|||
| ID | XO |
X |
|||||||
| IL | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| IN | X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||
| KS | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X* |
X* |
X |
||
| KY | X |
||||||||
| LA | XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
| ME | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
|
| MD | XO* |
X |
X* |
X |
X |
X |
XO* |
X* |
|
| MI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| MN | X |
X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
|||
| MS | XO* |
X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
||||
| MO | X |
||||||||
| MT | X |
||||||||
| NV | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
X |
||
| NH | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| NJ | O* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
XO |
X |
|
| NM | X |
||||||||
| NY | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
|||
| NC | XO |
XO |
X |
X |
XO* |
||||
| ND | |||||||||
| OH | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| OK | X |
X* |
|||||||
| OR | XO |
X |
X* |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
||
| PA | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
| RI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
|||
| SC | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
X* |
||
| TN | O* |
X* |
X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
||
| TX | XO* |
X* |
X |
X |
XO |
||||
| WA | X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
X |
|||
| WI | XO |
X |
X |
X* |
X* |
X |
X |
X |
|
Note: Twelve states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VT, VA and WV were drafting guidelines; UT had no guidelines. SD also is not included because its policy allowed no accommodations at all.
X = Accommodation allowed
O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 8 for specification of tests.
|
||||||||
Magnify Equip. |
Amplif. Equip. |
Noise Buffer |
Templates |
Abacus |
Audio/ Video Cass. |
Light/ Accoust. |
Computer/ Machine |
|
| AL | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| AK | X |
|||||||
| AR | X* |
X* |
||||||
| CT | ||||||||
| DE | X |
X |
X |
XO |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
| FL | X |
X |
X* |
X* |
||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| HI | XO* |
|||||||
| ID | ||||||||
| IL | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|
||
| IN | ||||||||
| KS | X* |
X* |
X* |
X |
||||
| KY | ||||||||
| LA | X* |
|||||||
| ME | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| MD | X |
XO* |
XO* |
|||||
| MI | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
| MN | X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
|||
| MS | X* |
X* |
||||||
| MO | ||||||||
| MT | ||||||||
| NV | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| NH | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| NJ | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| NM | ||||||||
| NY | X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
||
| NC | X |
X |
XO* |
X |
||||
| ND | ||||||||
| OH | ||||||||
| OK | ||||||||
| OR | X |
X |
X |
X* |
||||
| PA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| RI | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| SC | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| TN | X* |
X* |
||||||
| TX | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
| WA | X |
O |
X |
|||||
| WI | X |
|||||||
Note: Twelve states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VT, VA and WV were drafting guidelines; UT had no guidelines. SD also is not included because its policy allowed no accommodations at all.
X = Accommodation allowed
O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 8 for specification of tests.
|
||
Specifications |
Other |
|
| AL | Read Aloud–Basic Competency Test (BCT), High School Basic Skills Exit Exam (HSBSEE) (not reading subtest), Career Interest Inventory (CII), Grade-Level Criterion Referenced Test (CRT); Sign Language–BCT, HSBSEE, SAT, Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT), CII, CRT; Braille–BCT, HSBSEE, SAT, CRT; Large Print–BCT, HSBSEE, SAT, CRT; Admin by Other–BCT, HSBSEE, SAT, DAT, CII, CRT; Magnif. Equip.–BCT, HSBSEE; SAT; CII; CRT; Amplif. Equip.–BCT, HSBSEE; SAT; CII; CRT; Noise Buf-fer–BCT, HSBSEE; SAT; CII; CRT; Templates–BCT, HSBSEE; SAT; CII; CRT; Abacus–BCT, HSBSEE; CRT | As needed w/SDE approval-BCT, HSBSEE, CRT; Graph Paper-BCT, HSBSEE; CRT |
| AK | Test in language other than English | |
| AR | Read Aloud–SAT (not reading portion); Sign Language–SAT; Braille–SAT; Large Print–SAT; Magnif. Equip.–SAT; Noise Buffer–SAT | NOTE: scores from allowed accommodations do not go into summary data-SAT |
| DE | No reading aloud of reading test; Rereading directions for each subtask; Physical assistance; Auditory trainer; Math table, graph paper, using communication board, supplementing words with pictures, providing cues (arrows, stop signs) on assessment, revising the language (simplifying), and providing additional examples are permitted, but result in no aggregation of student's score; Adaptive furniture to accommodate a physical disability | |
| FL | Sign Language–High School Competency Test (HCST), FL Writing Assessment; Clarify Directions–HSCT; Abacus–HSCT; Computer/Machine–HSCT | May read all but non-oral reading items |
| GA | No reading aloud of reading test; Tactile version of print; Placemarker; Special paper; Use of computer/ machine okay for writing only if student has a physi-cal impairment, but students cannot use text editing. | |
| HI | Sign Language–Test of Essential Competencies; Audio/video Cassette–Test of Essential Competencies (specifically prohibited for SAT) | Alternate norms for hearing impaired students; Others available on request |
| ID | Local level decision | |
| IL | All based on IEP decision; no reading of reading portion of IL Goal Assessment Program; Simplify language in directions; Underline verbs in instructions; Provide additional examples; Increase spacing between items; Reduce # of items per page; Print reading passages with only one complete sentence per line; Arithmetic Tables | |
| IN | Adaptive equipment | |
| KS | Clarify Directions–Mathematics Assessment, Reading Assessment, Social Studies Assessment; Magnify Equip–Math, Reading, and Social Studies Assessments; Templates–Math, Reading, and Social Studies Assessment; Lighting/Acoustic–Math, Reading, and Social Studies Assessment | Give test items one at a time; Reduce # of items per page; Highlight key words or phrases in directions; Papers secured with tape; Directions reread as needed; Adaptive or special furniture-Math, Reading, and Social Studies Assessment |
| KY | Whatever IEP indicates | |
| LA | Read Aloud–Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) (not to be used for reading comprehension); Sign Language-LEAP; Braille–LEAP; Large Print–LEAP; Admin. by Other–LEAP; Lighting/ Acoustic–LEAP | In usual mode of communication; Transparencies for administration; Cannot read aloud in LA Educational Assessment Program; exception to the use of sign language exists when its use would give the answer; As needed on IEP-LEAP |
|
||
Specifications |
Other |
|
| ME | All accommodations-Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) | Other assistive technology–MEA; Other (must be DOE approved)–MEA |
| MD | Read Aloud–Prohibited on CTBS; MD School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP); MD Functional Testing Program (MFT); County CRTs (Not to be used for reading assessment); Braille-MFT; County CRTs; Audio/Video Cassette–MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; prohibited for the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS); Computer/Machine–MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; prohibited for the CTBS | Others as appropriate; Repetition of directions as needed; Written copies of orally presented directions-MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; Speller-MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; prohibited for the CTBS; Augmentative Communication device-MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; prohibited for the CTBS |
| MI | Adaptive or special furniture; Provide addl. examples; Masks or markers to maintain place | |
| MN | Audio/video cassette–Mathematics Assessment | Repeating directions; Short segment test booklet; Additional answer pages-Writing Assessment |
| MS | Read Aloud–Not to be used for reading, otherwise okay-Functional Literacy Examination (FLE); Subject Area Tests; Braille–FLE; Subject Area Tests; Large Print–FLE; Subject Area Tests; Magnif. Equip.–FLE; Subject Area Tests; Amplif. Equip.–ITBS; Test of Achievement and Proficiency; Auditory Trainer-FLE; Subject Area Tests | Others per advance request-FLE; Subject Area Tests; If other accommodations are used, score is not included in summary statistics-ITBS; Tests of Achievement and Proficiency; Specialized Table-FLE; Subject Area Tests; Test of Achievement and Proficiency |
| MO | IEP decides if accom. are used, scores are not included in building or district averages | |
| NV | Directions read aloud; Directions re-read; Directions on separate sheet; Reading test not read aloud; Math test can be read aloud; Others, per advance request; Text enlarger; Markers to maintain place | |
| NH | Reading not allowed for reading or language arts portions; Other mod. if approved by DOE in advance; All mod. consistent with mod. in student's program | |
| NJ | Read Aloud–High School Proficiency Test (HSPT); Sign Lang.-HSPT; Braille–HSPT; Large Print–HSPT; Clarify Directions–HSPT; Admin by Other–HSPT;Templates–HSPT; Lighting/ Acoustic–HSPT; Computer/Machine–HSPT | Pencil grip-HSPT; Provide written directions on separate paper -HSPT |
| NM | IEP Team recommends, needs State Superintendent approval | |
| NY | Read Aloud–Regent's Competency Exams (RCE); Regent's Exams & Proficiency Exams (RE&PE); Sign Lang.-RCE; RE&PE; Braille–RCE; RE&PE; Large Print–RCE; RE&PE; Abacus–RE&PE; Lighting/ Acoustics–RE&PE | Cues to remain on task-RCE; If read aloud, entire test should be read; No dictionary or thesaurus; No sheets with math formulas; Math tables ok; Grammar checker ok; Modify directions; Modify spacing, size, shape |
| NC | Audio/Video Cass.-Competency Tests | |
| OH | Read aloud–Proficiency Testing; Braille–Proficiency Testing; Large Print–Proficiency Testing | Protractor allowed in 6th grade math assessment-Proficiency Testing; There is a 4th grade practice test; Guidelines provided by national test publisher-Norm Referenced Achievement Tests; What is in the IEP or 504 Plan is allowed-Proficiency Testing |
| OK | Accommodations specified in IEP or by written request to the State Dept. of Ed. Student Assessment Section Director-Norm-Referenced Assessment; Accommodations which deviate from established standardized test procedures of OSTP must be reported-Norm Referenced Achievement; Criterion-Referenced Testing Program | |
|
||
Specifications |
Other |
|
| OR | Braille–Mathematics, Reading, and Literature Statewide Assessment (MRLSA); Other Templates–MRLSA | Repeat directions between reading selections and questions; Read or re-read directions to student; Prompt student to continue reading or move on to next question; Written version of oral directions; Highlight verbs in directions; Simplify directions; Manipulatives; Scratch paper-MRLSA |
| PA | Check to make sure student is marking in correct spaces; Accompany oral directions with written; Repeat directions to individual students; Have student demonstrate understanding of directions; Cue student to stay on task; Provide written steps for directions; Highlight key words or phrases in directions; Reduce stimuli (limit # of items on test); Secure papers to work area with tape or magnets; Read test items for math and writing only; Easel; Slantboard or wedge; Wrist rest; Arm stabilizer guide; Assistive technology; Specific types of pencils; Enlarge Answer sheet; Utilize different position of paper or alter student's test-taking position; Use colored stickers for visual cues; Use acetate color shield on pages to reduce glare and increase contrast | |
| RI | Magnif. Equip.-Health Performance Assessment (HPA); Math Performance Assessment (MPA); Writing Exam; Amplif. Equip.–HPA; MPA; Writing Exam; Computer/ Machine–Health Performance Assess-ment; MPA; Writing Exam | Repeat directions; Visual aids; Accommodations which are consistent with those in the students instructional program are allowed. |
| SC | Test administrator can sign, cue or communicate through an interpreter any directions normally read aloud to students.-Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP). Decision on level at which to test ungraded students who are not mainstreamed must be made by the IEP committee. BSAP is administered in standard American English; Pace and flow of the audiotape can be adjusted-Exit Examination. Items repeated as many times as necessary. Alternative Holistic Scoring Scale available BSAP: Closed circuit TV, optical low-vision aid, voice synthesizer, adaptive keyboard, voice activated word processor Exit Examination: Ruler, protractor in math. Lined paper for first drafts. Dictionary available for students in writing subtest. Electronic dictionary not allowed. Loose leaf test booklets allowed for reading and math. | |
| TN | Read aloud–only for internal directions-TN Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP); Read aloud–no parts-TN Competency Test (CP); Sign Language can be used only for directions usually read aloud; Magnif. Equip.–TCAP; TN CP; Templates–TCAP; TN CP | Sign directions for hearing impaired |
| TX | Read Aloud–only for math, social studies, 7 science sections of TAAS. Sign language–for directions only | Colored transparency over test allowed. Place marker, slide rule, reference materials allowed. Spell check disallowed |
| WA | Test preparation materials | |
| WI | Practice tests or examples before actual test administration. Equipment or technology that a student uses for other tests and school work allowed.-1996 Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test | |
| Table 9: Response Accommodations Allowed by States | ||||||||||
Comm. Device |
Computer or Machine |
Spell Checker |
Brailler |
Tape Recorder |
Calcu-lator |
Write in Test Booklets |
Proctor/ Scribe |
Pointing |
Other |
|
| AL | X* |
O* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| AK | X |
X |
||||||||
| AR | X* |
X* |
||||||||
| CT | X |
O |
X |
X |
X* |
|||||
| DE | XO |
X |
XO |
XO |
XO |
X |
||||
| FL | X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
XO |
X* |
|||||
| HI | O* |
X* |
X |
|||||||
| ID | X* |
X |
||||||||
| IL | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
| IN | X |
|||||||||
| KS | X* |
X |
X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
X* |
|||
| KY | ||||||||||
| LA | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||||
| ME | X* |
XO* |
X* |
X* |
||||||
| MD | XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
| MI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||
| MN | X |
X |
X* |
X* |
X |
X |
||||
| MS | X* |
X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| MO | X |
|||||||||
| MT | X |
X |
||||||||
| NV | X* |
O* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
|||
| NH | X* |
XO* |
X* |
|||||||
| NJ | X* |
X* |
O* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||||
| NM | X |
|||||||||
| NY | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|
| NC | X |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
|||||
| ND | ||||||||||
| OH | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||||
| OK | X* |
|||||||||
| OR | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
||
| PA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
X |
|
| RI | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| SC | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
| TN | X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||||
| TX | X |
O |
X |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| WA | X |
|||||||||
| WI | X |
X* |
X |
X |
X* |
|||||
Note: Twelve states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VT, VA and WV were drafting guidelines; UT had no guidelines. SD also is not included because its policy allowed no accommodations at all.
X = Accommodation allowed
O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 10 for specification of tests.
Table 10 is a listing of all other types of response accommodations allowed by states (for those states with "Other" noted in Table 9), as well as specifications about tests to which accommodation policies apply. These "other" accommodations reflect further the variability in state policies on accommodations. Examples of these accommodations included large-spaced paper, checking of a transferred response by a staff member, use of a slide rule, and use of reference materials. The use of grammar checkers, although frequently mentioned, was done so in a prohibitive manner.
|
||
Specification |
Other |
|
| AL | Computer or Machine–Basic Competency Test (BCT), High School Basic Skills Exit Exam (HSBSEE), Career Interest Inventory (CII), Grade-Level Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT); Spell Checker–CRT; Write in Test Booklets–BCT, HSBSEE, CRT; Proctor/Scribe–BCT, HSBSEE, CII, CRT | No grammar checker, or dictionary programs allowed; As needed, with SDE approval-BCT, HSBSEE, CRT; Large-print booklet-SAT |
| AR | Write in Test Booklets–SAT; Proctor/Scribe–SAT | |
| CT | Grammar check not allowed-Connecticut Mastery Test, Connecticut Academic Performance Test | |
| DE | Communication device and tape recorder not allowed for writing; If scribe is used for writing, scores can't be aggregated | |
| FL | Computer or Machine–High School Competency Test (HSCT); FCAT; Brailler–FL Writing Assessment Program; FCAT; Calculator–HSCT; FCAT; Write in Test Booklets–HSCT; Proctor/Scribe–HSCT; FL Writing Assessment Program | |
| GA | Proctor/scribe-Allowed in writing assessment if done in Braille; Pointing-Not allowed in writing assessment; Lined paper-Georgia Curriculum Based Assessments, Georgia High School Graduation Test, ITBS, Test of Achievement and Proficiency, Georgia Kindergarten Test; Sign language (if student has physical impairment)-Georgia Curriculum Based Assessments, Georgia High School Graduation Test, ITBS, Test of Achievement and Proficiency, Georgia Kindergarten Test | |
| HI | Calculator–Prohibited on HSTEC; Proctor/Scribe–SAT (only raw scores are calculated) | Others available on request |
| ID | Calculator–Tests of Achievement and Proficiency, ITBS (math concepts, problem solving, data interpretation) | Local level decision-extended time is coded 9 or Z |
| IL | Write in Test Booklets (IEP decision)-Illinois Goal Assessment Program | |
|
||
Specification |
Other |
|
| KS | Comm. Device–Mathematics Assessment; Reading Assessment; Social Studies Assessment; Brailler–Math Assessment; Reading Assessment; SS Assessment; Tape Recorder–Math Assessment; Reading Assessment; SS Assessment; Write in Test Booklets–Math Assessment; Reading Assessment; SS Assessment; Pointing–Math Assessment; Reading Assessment; SS Assessment | |
| LA | Write in Test Booklets–Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP); Proctor/Scribe–LEAP | As needed on IEP-LEAP |
| ME | Computer or Machine-Maine Educational Assessment (MEA); Calculator-MEA; Proctor/Scribe (student dictation okay except writing sample)-MEA | Student dictation is okay, except oral dictation of writing sample is not an approved modification; Large-spaced paper-MEA; Other approved by DOE in advance-MEA |
| MD | Comm. Device–Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), Maryland Functional Testing Program (MFT) (Graduation Tests in Reading, Math, Writing, and Citizenship), County CRTs; Computer or Machine–MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs; Tape Recorder–Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs; Calculator–MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs; Write in Test Booklets–CTBS, MFT, County CRTs; Proctor/Scribe–MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs; Pointing–CTBS, MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs | Staff member checks student's transferred response-CTBS, MFT, County CRTs; Other accommodations as appropriate-CTBS, MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs; Oral presentation to small group or familiar group-MSPAP, County CRTs; Sign language-MFT, County CRTs |
| MN | Tape Recorder–Mathematics Assessment, Reading Assessment; Write in Test Booklets–Mathematics Assessment, Reading Assessment | |
| MS | Comm. Device–Functional Literacy Examination (FLE), Subject Area Tests; Computer or Machine–FLE, Subject Area Tests; Brailler–FLE, Subject Area Tests; Calculator–Subject Area Tests (in some); Write in Test Booklets-FLE, Subject Area Tests; Proctor/Scribe–FLE, Subject Area Tests | Large-print booklet-FLE, Subject Area Tests; Others with advance request-FLE, Subject Area Tests; If accommodations are used, score is not included in summary statistics-ITBS, Test of Achievement and Proficiency |
| MO | IEP decides if accommodations are used, scores are not included in building or district averages | |
| NV | Computer or Machine–Terra Nova & High School Proficiency Exam Program (HSPEP); Spell Checker (also grammar, or hyphenation checker) (not allowed)-Terra Nova & HSPEP; Brailler–Terra Nova & HSPEP; Calculator (not allowed)-Terra Nova & HSPEP; Write in test booklets–Terra Nova & HSPEP; Proctor/Scribe (some parts)-Terra Nova & HSPEP | Lined paper-Terra Nova & HSPEP; Dictate to writing prompt only if physical handicap prevents answering unaided-Terra Nova & HSPEP; Write on separate sheet of paper-Terra Nova & HSPEP; Other accommodations with advance request-Terra Nova & HSPEP |
| NH | Computer or Machine–NHEAP; Calculator–NHEAP; Proctor/Scribe–NHEAP | |
| NJ | Computer or Machine-HSPT; Brailler-HSPT; Calculator-prohibited on HSPT; Write in Test Booklets–HSPT; Proctor/Scribe–HSPT; Pointing–HSPT | |
| NM | IEP team recommends, needs State Supt. approval | |
|
||
Specification |
Other |
|
| NY | Comm. Device–Regent's Competency Exams (RCE); Computer or Machine–RCE, Regent's Exams & Proficiency Exams (RE&PE); Spell checker–RCE, RE&PE; Tape recorder–RCE, RE&PE; Calculator (some parts)-RCE, RE&PE; Write in test booklets–RE&PE; Proctor/ Scribe-RCE, RE&PE; Pointing-RCE | Adaptive writing instrument-RCE; Delete requirement regarding spelling, punctuation, paragraphing-RE&PE |
| NC | Calculator only for application section, not computation; graphing calculators ok | |
| OH | Calculator–Proficiency Testing (6th grade Math and 12th grade Math and Science tests); Proctor/Scribe–Proficiency Testing | Guidelines provided by national test publisher-Norm Referenced Achievement Tests; What is in IEP or 504 Plan-Proficiency Testing |
| OK | Large-print booklet-Norm-Referenced Achieve-ment Test (NRA), Norm-Referenced Writing Assessment, Criterion-Referenced Testing Program; Accommodations which deviate from established standardized procedures for OSTP must be reported-NRA; Accommodations as specified in IEP or 504 Plan-NRA; Written request to State Department of Education Student Assessment Sec-tion Director-NRA | |
| OR | Comm. Device–Statewide Writing Assessment (SWA); Computer or Machine–SWA; Brailler–SWA; Tape Recorder–SWA; Calculator–Mathematics, Reading, and Literature Statewide Assessment (MRLSA); Write in Test Booklets–MRLSA; Pointing–MRLSA | |
| PA | Large-print booklet; audio tape for math and reading tests only | |
| RI | Computer Or Machine–Health Performance Assessment (HPA), Math Performance Assessment (MPA), Writing Exam; Tape Recorder–HPA; Calculator–MPA; Proctor/Scribe–HPA; MPA; Pointing–HPA, MPA, Writing Exam | |
| SC | Comm. Device-Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP); Computer or Machine–BSAP, Exit Examination; Brailler–BSAP, Exit Examination; Tape Recorder–BSAP (6,8 Writing), Exit Examination (6, 8 Writing); Calculator–Exit Examination (Math); Write in Test Booklets–BSAP, Exit Examination; Pointing–BSAP, Exit Examination | Student dictates for individual administration-BSAP, Exit Examination; Large-print booklet-BSAP, Exit Examination; Lined paper for grades 6 and 8-BSAP; Adaptive keyboard-BSAP; Voice activated word processor-BSAP; Voice synthesizer-BSAP; Loose-leaf test booklets for reading and math-BSAP; Student may write composition on large print paper-BSAP |
| TN | Computer or Machine–Tennessee Competency Test (CP); Write in Test Booklets–TN CP; Proctor/Scribe–Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), TN CP | |
| TX | Colored transparency over test allowed; Place marker, slide rule, reference materials allowed; Calculator only on Algebra I end-of-course exam | |
| WI | Computer or Machine–Knowledge & Concepts Component of WSAS; Pointing–Knowledge & Concepts Component of WSAS | |
Scheduling Accommodations
Scheduling accommodations (see Table 11) are any timing or scheduling changes in the way the test is regularly administered. These accommodations include providing the student breaks in the testing, providing extended time in which to take the test, or administering the test over multiple days when it usually occurs on one day. Extended time was the most frequently mentioned accommodation in state guidelines, with two-thirds (13) of the 39 states with policies allowing extended time, and another 5% (two states) prohibiting that accommodation. Offering breaks and other accommodations were the next most frequently mentioned scheduling accommodations.
Table 12 summarizes all other types of scheduling accommodations allowed by states (for those states with "Other" noted in Table 11), and the specifications about tests to which these accommodation policies apply. Again, states vary widely; some states limit the amount of extended time available or specify when breaks are permitted. Others allow a student to take a single subtest at a time, give the test in shorter sessions, and provide alternate testing dates.
Setting Accommodations
Setting accommodations (see Table 13) are changes to the testing environment, or location in which the test is administered. These accommodations could include administering the test in the student's home, individually at school, or with a specified seat location or proximity to the administrator. Allowing students to take tests individually or in small groups were the most popular accommodations within this category, with approximately two-thirds of states allowing each. Less frequently mentioned settings include hospitals. As with other types of accommodations, there were many other setting accommodations mentioned by states.
Table 14 lists all other types of setting accommodations allowed by states (for those states with "Other" noted in Table 13), and specifications about tests to which accommodation policies apply. States mention assorted accommodations, ranging from alternate location, quiet location, modified grouping arrangements, to increasing or decreasing a student's opportunity for movement.
|
|||||||
Extended Time |
With Breaks |
Time Beneficial to Student |
Student can no longer sus-tain activity |
Multiple Sessions |
Over Multiple Days |
Other |
|
| AL | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|
| AK | X* |
X* |
|||||
| AR | O* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| CT | X |
X |
X |
||||
| DE | XO |
XO |
X |
||||
| FL | X |
X |
X |
||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
X* |
| HI | X |
X* |
|||||
| ID | X* |
X |
|||||
| IL | X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| IN | X |
||||||
| KS | X |
X* |
|||||
| KY | X |
||||||
| LA | X* |
X* |
X* |
||||
| ME | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| MD | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|
| MI | X |
X |
|||||
| MN | X |
X |
X* |
X* |
|||
| MS | X |
X |
X |
X* |
|||
| MO | X |
||||||
| MT | X |
||||||
| NV | X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| NH | X* |
X* |
X* |
||||
| NJ | X* |
X* |
X* |
||||
| NM | X |
||||||
| NY | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| NC | X |
X |
|||||
| ND | |||||||
| OH | X* |
X |
|||||
| OK | X* |
||||||
| OR | X |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
||
| PA | X |
X |
|||||
| RI | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
| SC | X* |
X* |
X |
||||
| TN | O* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| TX | X |
X |
X |
X |
|||
| WA | O |
X |
|||||
| WI | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
Note: Twelve states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VT, VA and WV were drafting guidelines; UT had no guidelines. SD also is not included because its policy allowed no accommodations at all.
X = Accommodation allowed
O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 12 for specification of tests.
|
||||||||||
Specifications |
Other |
|||||||||
| AL | Extended Time–Career Interest Inventory (CII); Grade-Level Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT); With Breaks–Basic Competency Test (BCT) and High School Basic Skills Exit Exam (HSBSEE); SAT; Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT); Time Beneficial to Student– and HSBSEE; SAT; DAT; CII; CRT; Student Can No Longer Sustain Activity–BCT and HSBSEE; Multiple Sessions–Basic Competency Test (BCT) and HSBSEE; SAT; DAT | As needed w/SDE approval-BCT and HSBSEE; CRT; Extended time no more than double, requires SDE approval-CII; CRT | ||||||||
| AK | With Breaks-CAT-5 | Flexible Scheduling-CAT-5 | ||||||||
| AR | Extended Time (Not Permitted)-SAT; With Breaks–SAT; Over Multiple Days–SAT | No Breaks during subtest-SAT | ||||||||
| DE | If assessment does not have discrete sections, using several sessions or stopping when student tires means that the scores can't be aggregated | |||||||||
| FL | Extended time to end of day | |||||||||
| GA | Any accomm. get in instruction; Can't test writing over multiple days; No accommodations allowed-ITBS | |||||||||
| HI | Others available on request ; No breaks during sub-tests-SAT; If a student is given extended time, only raw scores are calculated-SAT | |||||||||
| ID | Extended Time–Direct Writing Assessment; Performance Mathematics Assessment | Local level decision | ||||||||
| KS | With Breaks–Mathematics Assessment, Reading Assessment, Social Studies Assessment | |||||||||
| KY | All accommodations allowed | |||||||||
| LA | Extended Time-LA Educational Assessment Program (LEAP); With Breaks–LEAP | As needed on IEP-LA Educational Assessment Program | ||||||||
| ME | With Breaks–Maine Educational Assessment (MEA); Time Beneficial to Student-MEA; Student Can No Longer Sustain Activity–MEA | Others (must have DOE approval in advance)-MEA | ||||||||
| MD | Extended Time–Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS); MD School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP); Maryland Functional Testing Program (MFT) (Graduation Tests in Reading, Math, Writing, and Citizenship); County CRTs; With Breaks–CTBS; MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; Time Beneficial to Student–CTBS; MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; Multiple Sessions-CTBS; MD School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP); MFT; County CRTs; Over Multiple Days–CTBS; MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs | Extended time invalidates comparisons to national norms-CTBS; Breaks away from testing area-CTBS; MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs; Other, as appropriate-CTBS; MSPAP; MFT; County CRTs | ||||||||
| MN | Multiple Sessions–Math Assessment; Reading Assessment; Over Multiple Days–Math Assessment; Reading Assessment | |||||||||
| MS | If student needs extended time or specific length blocks of time, the score is not included in summary stats-ITBS; Test of Achievement and Proficiency; Others, per advance request-FLE; Subject Area Tests | |||||||||
|
||||||||||
Specifications |
Other |
|||||||||
| MO | IEP Decides, if accomm. are used, scores are not included in building or district averages | |||||||||
| NV | Extended time cannot be more than twice as much as the regular time; Others, per advance request | |||||||||
| NH | With Breaks–NHEAP; Time Beneficial to Student-NHEAP; Student can no longer sustain activity–NHEAP | |||||||||
| NJ | Extended Time-HSPT; With Breaks-HSPT; Over Multiple Days–HSPT | |||||||||
| NM | IEP Team recommends, needs State Superintendent approval | |||||||||
| NY | Extended Time–Regent's Competency Tests (RCT); Regent's Exams & Proficiency Exams (RE&PE); With Breaks-RCT; Multiple Sessions–Regent's Competency Tests; RE&PE; Over Multiple Days-RCT; RE&PE | |||||||||
| OH | Extended Time–Proficiency Testing (4, 6, 9, 12) | Guidelines are provided by national test publisher-Norm Referenced Achievement Tests; What's in the IEP or 504 Plan is allowed-Proficiency Testing (4, 6, 9, 12) | ||||||||
| OK | Report accommodations which deviate from the established standardized procedures for administration of the Oklahoma Student Testing Program-Norm-Referenced Achievement (NRA); Other accommodations as specified in IEP or written request to State Department of Education Student Assessment Section Director-NRA | |||||||||
| OR | Time Beneficial to Student-Mathematics, Reading, and Literature Statewide Assessment (MRLSA); Over Multiple Days–MRLSA | |||||||||
| RI | Extended Time–Health Performance Assessment (HPA); Math Performance Assessment (MPA); Writing Exam; With Breaks–HPA; MPA; Writing Exam; Student Can No Longer Sustain Activity–HPA; MPA; Writing Exam; Multiple Sessions–HPA; MPA; Writing Exam; Over Multiple Days–HPA; MPA; Writing Exam | |||||||||
| SC | Extended Time-Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP) (Gr. 3, 6, 8);Multiple Sessions–BSAP (Gr. 3, 6, 8) | BSAP tests are not timed-BSAP (Gr. 3, 6, 8 | ||||||||
| TN | Extended Time (Not Allowed)- TN Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP); Multiple Sessions-TCAP/Competency Test; Over Multiple Days–TCAP/Competency Test | Single subtest at a time-TCAP; Shorter Sessions-TCAP/Competency Test; Notify if test over multiple days-TCAP/Competency Test | ||||||||
| TX | Alternate testing dates may be provided for migra-tory children for exit level and end-of-course tests. | |||||||||
| WA | Do a single subtest; Alter subtest order. | |||||||||
| WI | Extended Time–Third Grade Reading Test; With Breaks-Third Grade Reading Test; Time Beneficial to Student-Third Grade Reading Test; Multiple Sessions-Third Grade Reading Test; Over Multiple Days–Third Grade Reading Test | |||||||||
|
||||||||||
Individual |
Carrel |
Small Group |
Special Ed. Class |
Student's Home |
Separate Room |
Seat Location/ Proximity |
Hospital |
Other |
||
| AL | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||
| AK | X* |
X* |
||||||||
| AR | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||||||
| CT | X |
X |
X |
|||||||
| DE | X |
X |
||||||||
| FL | X |
X |
||||||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| HI | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||||||
| ID | X* |
|||||||||
| IL | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
| IN | ||||||||||
| KS | X |
X |
X* |
X* |
||||||
| KY | ||||||||||
| LA | X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| ME | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||||
| MD | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||
| MI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X* |
||||
| MN | X |
X |
||||||||
| MS | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X* |
|||
| MO | X* |
|||||||||
| MT | X |
|||||||||
| NV | X |
X |
X |
X |
X* |
|||||
| NH | X* |
X* |
XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X |
|||
| NJ | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| NM | X* |
|||||||||
| NY | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
||||
| NC | X |
X |
X |
|||||||
| ND | ||||||||||
| OH | X* |
|||||||||
| OK | X* |
|||||||||
| OR | X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
|||||
| PA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||
| RI | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| SC | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| TN | X* |
X* |
X |
|||||||
| TX | X |
X |
||||||||
| WA | X |
X |
||||||||
| WI | X |
X |
X |
X* |
X |
|||||
Note: Twelve states are not included in this table. IA, NE, and WY had no state assessment; AZ, CA, CO and MA had the state assessment suspended; VT, VA and WV were drafting guidelines; UT had no guidelines. SD also is not included because its policy allowed no accommodations at all.
X = Accommodation allowed
O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 14 for specification of tests.
|
||
Specifications |
Other |
|
| AL | Individual–Basic Competency Test (BCT) & High School Basic Skills Exit Exam (HSBSEE), SAT, Differential Aptitude Tests (DAT), Career Interest Inventory (CII), Grade-Level Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT); Carrel–BCT & HSBSEE, SAT, DAT, CII, CRT; Small Group–Basic Competency Test & HSBSEE, SAT, DAT, CII, CRT; Special Ed. Class–BCT & HSBSEE, SAT, DAT, CII, CRT; Student's Home–BCT & HSBSEE, SAT, DAT, CII, CRT; Seat Location/Proximity–BCT & HSBSEE, SAT, DAT, CII, CRT | As needed with/SDE approval-BCT & HSBSEE, CRT |
| AK | Small Grp–CAT-5; Separate Room–CAT-5 | |
| AR | Individual–SAT; Carrel–SAT; Small Group–SAT; Seat Location/Proximity–SAT | |
| GA | Special Ed. Class–Georgia High School Graduation Test (some items) | |
| HI | Individual–SAT; Separate Room–SAT; Seat Location/Proximity–SAT | Modified grouping arrangement or alternate testing sites-Test of Essential Competencies; Others availa-ble on request-SAT; Test of Essential Competencies |
| ID | Local level decision, extended time coded "9" or "Z"-Test of Achievement and Proficiency, ITBS, Direct Writing Assessment, Performance Mathematics Assessment, Interdisciplinary Assessments | |
| IL | All based on IEP decision | |
| Separate Room–Math Assessment; Reading Assessment, Social Studies Assessment | Provide quieter environment-Math Assessment; Reading Assessment, Social Studies Assessment | |
| LA | Individual–Louisiana Educational Assessment (LEAP); Small Group–LEAP; Seat Location/Proximity–LEAP | Any others noted by IEP team-LEAP |
| ME | Individual–Maine Educational Assessment (MEA); Carrel–MEA; Small Group–MEA; Student's Home–MEA; Seat Location/ Proximity–MEA | Alternative setting-MEA; Others with DOE approval in advance-MEA |
| MD | Individual–Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), Maryland Functional Testing Program (MFT) (Graduation Tests in Reading, Math, Writing, and Citizenship), County CRTs; Carrel–CTBS, Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), MFT, County CRTs; Small group–CTBS, MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs; Student's Home–CTBS, MFT, County CRTs; Separate Room–CTBS, MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs; Seat Location/Proximity–CTBS, MSPAP, MFT), County CRTs; Hospital–CTBS, MFT, County CRTs | Other as appropriate-CTBS, MSPAP, MFT, County CRTs |
| MI | Reduced noise levels-Michigan Education Assessment Program | |
| MS | Others per advance request-Functional Literacy Examination (FLE), Subject Area Tests; If other accommodations are used, score is not included in summary statistics-ITBS, Test of Achievement and Proficiency | |
|
||
Specifications |
Other |
|
| MO | IEP decides on accommodations-Missouri Mastery Achievement Test; If accommodations are used, scores are not included in building or district averages-Missouri Mastery Achievement Test | |
| NV | Others, per advance request; Student's home (only with advance permission)-Terra Nova and High School Proficiency Exam Program (HSPEP); Alternate location-Terra Nova & HSPEP | |
| NH | Individual-NHEAP; Carrel–NHEAP; Small Grp–NHEAP; Sp Ed Class–NHEAP; Student's Home–NHEAP; Seat Location/ Proximity–NHEAP | Other mod. if approved by DOE in advance; All mod. consistent with mod. in student's program; No small group testing on reading or lang arts portions |
| NJ | Individual-HSPT; Small Group–HSPT; Special Ed. Class–HSPT; Separate Room–HSPT; Seat Location/Proximity–HSPT | |
| NM | IEP team recommends, needs state superintendent approval -New Mexico Reading Assessment, Achievement Assessment, Direct Writing Assess-ment, High School Competency Examinations | |
| NY | Individual–Regent's Competency Exams (RCE), Regent's Exams & Proficiency Exams (RE&PE); Carrel–RE&PE; Small Group–RCE, RE&PE; Student's Home–RCE; Separate Room–RCE, RE&PE; Hospital–RCE | |
| OH | Guidelines provided by national test publisher-Norm Referenced Achievement Tests; What is in the IEP or 504 Plan is allowed-Proficiency Testing (Gr. 4, 6, 9, 12) | |
| OK | Accommodations which deviate from established standardized procedures must be reported-Norm-Referenced Achievement Test (NRA); As specified in IEP-NRA; Accommodations requested in writing to State Dept. of Ed. Student Assessment Section Director-NRA | |
| OR | Special Education Class–Mathematics, Reading, and Literature Statewide Assessment | |
| PA | Increase or decrease opportunity for movement | |
| RI | Individual–Health Perf. Assessment (HPA), Math Perf. Assessment (MPA), Writing Exam; Small Group–HPA, MPA, Writing Exam; Special Ed. Class–HPA, MPA, Writing Exam; Separate Room–HPA, MPA, Writing Exam; Seat Loca-tion/Proximity–HPA, MPA, Writing Exam | |
| SC | Individual–Exit Exam, Basic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP); Small Group–Exit Exam; Student's Home–Exit Exam, BSAP (if student homebound or home schooled); Hospital–BSAP | In a setting appropriate to a student's individual needs-BSAP |
| TN | Individual–Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP), TN Competency Test (CP); Small Group–TCAP, TN CP | |
| WI | Separate Room–1996 Wisconsin Reading Comprehension Test | |
Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced Assessments
Because of emerging questions about differences in norm-referenced and criterion-referenced assessments, we also analyzed accommodations policies for the two types of assessments. We selected only those states that had both norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests (N=19), then identified the types of accommodations available to students in each type (see Tables 15-19).
|
||||||||||||||||
Read Aloud |
Sign Lang. |
Braille |
Large Print |
Clarify Directions |
Admin by Other |
With Assist. (e.g., aide) |
||||||||||
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
|||
| AL | X* |
X |
X |
X |
XO* |
X |
X* |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
| AK | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| AR | XO |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| GA | XO |
XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
| HI | O |
O |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||||||
| ID | ||||||||||||||||
| LA | XO* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X |
|||||||||||
| MD | O |
XO* |
X |
X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
|||||
| MS | XO |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||
| NH | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||
| NM | ||||||||||||||||
| OH | X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||
| OK | X |
X |
||||||||||||||
| RI | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| SC | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| TN | O |
O* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
||||||
| UT | ||||||||||||||||
| VA | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| WV | ||||||||||||||||
NR = Norm-Referenced Assessments
CR = Criterion-Referenced Assessments
X = Accommodation allowed
O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 8 for specification of tests.
|
||||||||||||||||||
Magnify Equip. |
Amp. Equip. |
Noise Buffer |
Templates |
Abacus |
Audio/ Video Cass. |
Light/ Accoust. |
Computer/ Machine |
|||||||||||
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
|||
| AL | X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X |
|||||||||
| AK | X |
X |
||||||||||||||||
| AR | X |
X |
||||||||||||||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
| HI | O |
X |
||||||||||||||||
| ID | ||||||||||||||||||
| LA | X |
|||||||||||||||||
| MD | X |
X* |
O |
X* |
O |
X* |
||||||||||||
| MS | X |
X |
||||||||||||||||
| NH | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||
| NM | ||||||||||||||||||
| OH | ||||||||||||||||||
| OK | ||||||||||||||||||
| RI | X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||||
| SC | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| TN | X |
X* |
X |
X* |
||||||||||||||
| UT | ||||||||||||||||||
| VA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| WV | ||||||||||||||||||
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 8 for specification of tests.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Comm. Device |
Computer or Machine |
Spell Checker |
Brailler |
Tape Recorder |
Calculator |
Write in Test Booklets |
Proctor/ Scribe |
Pointing |
|||||||||||||
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
||||
| AL | X* |
X |
O |
X |
X* |
X |
|||||||||||||||
| AK | X |
||||||||||||||||||||
| AR | X |
X |
|||||||||||||||||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
XO |
XO |
XO |
|||||||||||||
| HI | O |
X |
|||||||||||||||||||
| ID | |||||||||||||||||||||
| LA | X* |
X* |
|||||||||||||||||||
| MD | O |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
O |
X* |
X |
X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
||||||||
| MS | X |
X |
X |
XO |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||||
| NH | X |
X |
XO |
||||||||||||||||||
| NM | |||||||||||||||||||||
| OH | X |
X |
|||||||||||||||||||
| OK | |||||||||||||||||||||
| RI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||||
| SC | X |
X |
X |
X |
O |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||
| TN | X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
|||||||||||||||||
| UT | |||||||||||||||||||||
| VA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
X |
||||||||||||||
| WV | |||||||||||||||||||||
NR = Norm-Referenced Assessments CR = Criterion-Referenced Assessments
X = Accommodation allowed O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 10 for specification of tests.
|
||||||||||||||
Extended Time |
With Breaks |
Time Beneficial to Student |
Student can no longer sustain activity |
Multiple Sessions |
Over Multiple Days |
|||||||||
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
|||
| AL | X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X |
X* |
X* |
X* |
X* |
|||||
| AK | X |
|||||||||||||
| AR | O |
X |
X |
|||||||||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
XO |
XO |
||
| HI | X |
X |
||||||||||||
| ID | ||||||||||||||
| LA | X |
X |
||||||||||||
| MD | XO |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||
| MS | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||
| NH | X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||
| NM | ||||||||||||||
| OH | X |
|||||||||||||
| OK | ||||||||||||||
| RI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||||||
| SC | X* |
X* |
||||||||||||
| TN | O |
X* |
X* |
|||||||||||
| UT | ||||||||||||||
| VA | X* |
XO* |
XO* |
|||||||||||
| WV | ||||||||||||||
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 12 for specification of tests.
|
||||||||||||||||||
Small Group |
Carrel |
Spec. Ed. Class |
Student's Home |
Seat Loc./ Prox. |
Individual |
Separate Room |
Hos-pital |
|||||||||||
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
NR |
CR |
|||
| AL | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
| AK | X |
X |
||||||||||||||||
| AR | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||
| GA | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||
| HI | X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||||
| ID | ||||||||||||||||||
| LA | X* |
X |
X* |
X* |
||||||||||||||
| MD | X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
X |
X* |
||||
| MS | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||
| NH | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
| NM | ||||||||||||||||||
| OH | ||||||||||||||||||
| OK | ||||||||||||||||||
| RI | X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||
| SC | X |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||||
| TN | X |
X* |
X |
X* |
||||||||||||||
| UT | ||||||||||||||||||
| VA | X |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||
| WV | ||||||||||||||||||
NR = Norm-Referenced Assessments CR = Criterion-Referenced Assessments
X = Accommodation allowed O = Accommodation prohibited
XO = Accommodation allowed in some situations, prohibited in others
* = True only for certain tests within the state's assessment system. See Table 14 for specification of tests.
Regardless of the type of accommodation, criterion-referenced tests allow for the use of more accommodations than norm-referenced tests. In fact, out of the 38 comparisons of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests included in the tables, none indicated that more accommodations were available for norm-referenced assessments than for criterion-referenced assessments. There were three accommodations that were allowed with equal frequency in norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests: the presentation accommodation of allowing the student assistance (e.g., an aide), the setting accommodation allowing the student to use a carrel, and allowing the student to take the test in a separate room. This did not mean, however, that each state offering one of those three accommodations in one type of test (e.g., norm-referenced) also offered it in the other (e.g., criterion-referenced). For example, Arkansas allows the use of a carrel for a norm-referenced test but not for a criterion-referenced test. New Hampshire allows the same accommodation for a criterion-referenced test but not for a norm-referenced test.
Some of the accommodations that are most often allowed in criterion-referenced tests, and are frequently not available in norm-referenced tests include: reading the test aloud, Braille versions of the test, large print versions of the test, magnification equipment, using a computer or machine in test presentation, using a computer or machine for the student's response to the test, using a calculator, writing in test booklets, offering a proctor or scribe, and allowing extended time. One commonality between norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests was in the setting accommodations. That is, setting accommodations such as administering the assessment individually, in small groups, or in alternative locations were allowed in both norm-referenced tests and criterion-referenced tests.
Discussion
The number of states revising their state assessments, participation, and/or accommodation policies has grown over the past five years. One of the most notable changes since the 1995 report is the decrease in the number of states with active participation policies (from 43 to 40), most likely due to the number of states that have suspended either their state assessment system or the participation policies they had in place. Unlike the 1993 and 1995 reports, this report shows that nearly every state that has a state assessment also has a set of accommodation guidelines; only a couple states have never had guidelines for their tests. However, because of the number of states that have had their assessments or policies suspended, the number of states with accommodation policies has only increased from 38 to 39 in the two years since the 1995 report.
States' work on participation and accommodations policies is apparent in the number of policies that have been revised from the time of the 1995 report -- 34 new or revised policies on participation and 32 new or revised policies on accommodations, a large number of changes in the relatively short period of two years since 1995.
When examining participation policies, there were some similarities between this report and that of the 1995 report. One similarity is the continued reliance on the IEP team to help make participation decisions. A second similarity is the involvement of parents in making participation decisions. Changes that have occurred over time include decreases in attention to the type of disability, and an increase in attention to curricular validity concerns or matching the assessment to the course content. Finally, additional testing options are becoming more widely available, with many states allowing partial participation in testing, and a growing number of states preparing to offer alternate assessments for students with very severe disabilities. This was occurring before the June, 1997 passage of amendments to IDEA, which require that states have alternate assessments in place by the year 2000. However, getting a good assessment of the number of states with alternate assessments is difficult. A recent NCEO survey (Erickson & Thurlow, 1997) showed 15 states reporting that they had developed or were developing alternate assessments. Yet, many of these states were really only thinking about or beginning to plan this development. In addition, states often interpret different things to be alternate assessments. For example, some states consider out-of-level testing to be an alternate test, something that is contrary to developing an inclusive accountability system (Elliott et al., 1996).
Accommodations policies, while they have undergone many changes since 1995, continue to have some common themes. Reading the test aloud is still both widely allowed and widely prohibited. Calculators were another accommodation both allowed and prohibited in 1995. In 1997 policies, they are more widely allowed (though sometimes with restrictions), and less frequently prohibited. Proctors and scribes were also more widely available in 1997 than they were in 1995, with nearly three-quarters of states with policies allowing their use.
The variability in policies became more apparent with the use of tables to summarize the policies. This occurred both when examining the variables categorized in the main tables and when examining the variability of accommodations states offer that fell into our "Other" category. These ranged from decreasing the amount a student could move during testing to offering modified pencils. States' creativity in developing accommodations intended to meet the needs of their students with disabilities is clearly demonstrated here.
The norm-referenced and criterion-referenced accommodations comparisons also yielded some interesting results. The fact that accommodations were more often available for criterion-referenced than for norm-referenced tests was an expected finding, but striking in how consistent it was. Additionally, it was curious that the number of accommodations available in norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests was the most similar in the category of setting accommodations. Perhaps this is the case because the setting of the assessment is less specified in standardization procedures, or is seen as more changeable before any issues with standardization arise.
Overall, it is apparent that many states have been doing a great deal of work on the participation of students with disabilities in their assessments, and how the states can accommodate the students appropriately. It is encouraging to see that even before legal mandates were put in place (e.g., IDEA), states had taken the initiative to work toward including all students in their assessments, and therefore, begin to hold schools accountable for the education of every student who attends.
References
Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6(4), 397-414.
Bond, L., Braskamp, D., & Roeber, E. (1996). The status of student assessment programs in the United States. Oak Brooks, IL: NCREL.
Elliott, J.L., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1996). Assessment guidelines that maximize the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: Characteristics and considerations (Synthesis Report 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Erickson, R.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (1997). 1997 State special education outcomes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
McGrew, K.S., Thurlow, M.L., Shriner, J.G,. & Spiegel, A.N. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs (Technical Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Langenfeld, K., Nelson, J.R., Shin, H., & Coleman, J. (1997). State accountability reports: What do they say about students with disabilities? (Technical Report 20). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995a). A compilation of states' guidelines for accommodations in assessments for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 18). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Scott, D.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1995b). A compilation of states' guidelines for including students with disabilities in assessments (Synthesis Report 17). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M.L., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Silverstein, B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Report 4). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M.L., Erickson, R.N., Gabrys, R., Haigh, J., Trimble, S., & Gong, B. (1996). A comparison of state assessment systems in Kentucky and Maryland, with a focus on the participation of students with disabilities (Maryland/Kentucky Report 1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Zlatos, B. (1994). Don't test, don't tell: Is "academic red-shirting" skewing the way we rank our schools? American School Board Journal, 181 (11), 24-28.
Appendix: State Documents
Alabama State Department of Education. (1995). Alabama student assessment program: Policies and procedures for students of special populations. Montgomery, AL: Author
Alaska Department of Education. (1997). Alaska special education handbook for serving students with disabilities. Juneau, AK: Author.
Arkansas Department of Education. (1993, January). Director's communication. No. 93-10. (Citing: Arkansas Code Annotated 6-15-401, et seq. as regulatory authority.) Little Rock, AR: Author.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (1996). Guidelines for administering the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) to students receiving special education or section 504 services (3rd ed.). Hartford, CT: Author.
Delaware Department of Public Instruction. (1995). Delaware statewide assessment programs: Guidelines for the inclusion of students with disabilities. Dover, DE: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (1996). Florida writing assessment program: Test administrator's manual. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (1997). Florida comprehensive assessment test: Administrator's manual. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (1997). The high school competency test administration manual. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Florida Department of Education. (1997). Policy paper: Accountability for students with disabilities in state and district assessment programs. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Georgia Department of Education. (1994). Student assessment handbook. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Hawaii Department of Education. (1996). The Hawaii State Test of Essential Competencies (HSTEC) for students with disabilities: Guidelines and procedures. Honolulu, HI: Author
Hawaii Department of Education. (1996, Spring). Hawaii statewide student assessment program: Test coordinator's handbook. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Idaho Department of Education. (1993, September). Test coordinator's guide: Idaho statewide testing program. Boise, ID: Author.
Illinois Department of Education. (1995). Testing students with disabilities: Accommodations for state and local assessments. Springfield, IL: Author.
Illinois State Board of Education. (1996, January). Illinois Goal Assessment Program (IGAP): Questions and answers. Springfield, IL: Author.
Indiana Department of Education. (1996, Fall). Indiana Statewide Testing For Educational Progress (ISTEP): Program manual. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
The University of Kansas. (1997). Kansas mathematics assessment: Examiner's manual. Lawrence, KS: Author.
The University of Kansas. (1997). Kansas reading assessment: Examiner's manual. Lawrence, KS: Author.
The University of Kansas. (1997). Kansas science assessment: Examiner's manual. Lawrence, KS: Author.
The University of Kansas. (1997). Kansas social studies assessment: Examiner's manual. Lawrence, KS: Author.
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). KDE draft working document: Accommodations for students with disabilities on the KIRIS assessment. Frankfort, KY: Author.
Louisiana Department of Education. (1996). Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP): Test administrator's manual. Baton Rouge, LA: Author.
Maine Department of Education. (1995-96). Policies and procedures for modifications and exclusions. Augusta, ME: Author.
Maryland Department of Education. (1997, September). Requirements for accommodating, excusing, and exempting students in Maryland assessment programs. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Michigan Department of Education. (1995). The Michigan High School Proficiency Tests: Testing guidelines for students with disabilities, limited English proficiency, and dual enrollment eligibility. Lansing, MI: Author.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (1995). Proposed permanent rules relating to graduation standards. St. Paul, MN: Author.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning. (1996). Basic Standards Testing: Sample accommodations and modifications for students with IEPs or 504 plans. St. Paul, MN: Author.
Mississippi Department of Education. (1994, August). Mississippi assessment system: Exclusions and accommodations. Jackson, MS: Author.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1991). Missouri mastery and achievement tests: Examiner's manual and directions, grades 2-10. Jefferson City, MO: Author.
Montana State Department of Education. (1997, January). Student assessment rule: Amendment to 10.56.101. Helena, MT: Author.
Nevada Department of Education. (1996-97). Guidelines for the conduct of the Nevada Proficiency Examination Program. Carson City, NV: Author.
New Hampshire Educational Improvement and Assessment Program. (1994). Guidelines for modifications and exclusions. Concord, NH: Author.
New Jersey State Department of Education. (1996) Grade 11 High School Proficiency Test: Test coordinator's manual. Trenton, NJ: Author.
New Mexico State Director of Assessment and Evaluation. (1994, July). Memorandum to district superintendents and test coordinators. Santa Fe, NM: Author.
New Mexico Department of Education. (1996). Statewide testing assessment requirement: Addendum D. Santa Fe, NM: Author.
New York Department of Education. (1995, November). Test access and modification for individuals with disabilities. Albany, NY: Author.
Public Schools of North Carolina, State Board of Education. (1996, July). Testing modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities: North Carolina testing program. Raleigh, NC: Author.
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction. (1994). Test coordinator's manual: Special populations information form. Bismarck, ND: Author.
Ohio Department of Education. (1995, August). Ohio's statewide testing program: Rules for high school proficiency test. Columbus, OH: Author.
Ohio Department of Education. (1995, August). Ohio's statewide testing program: Rules for proficiency testing. Columbus, OH: Author.
Oklahoma Department of Education. (1994, March). Rules and regulations of the Oklahoma school testing program. Oklahoma City, OK: Author.
Oregon Department of Education. (1997). Oregon statewide assessment program: Administration manual for mathematics and reading/literature. Salem, OR: Author.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (1995, December). Testing accommodations to encourage participation by students with disabilities in the Pennsylvania system of school assessment. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
Rhode Island Department of Education. (1997). Guidelines for inclusion of all students in the 1997 Rhode Island state performance assessments. Providence, RI: Author.
South Carolina Department of Education. (1996, Spring). Basic skills assessment program: Test administrator's manual. Columbia, SC: Author.
South Dakota Department of Education. (1994, January). Test preparation guidelines for the South Dakota assessment. Pierre, SD: Author.
Tennessee Department of Education. (1995, April). The measure of education: A review of the Tennessee value added assessment system. Knoxville, TN: Author.
Texas Education Agency. (1996). A report to the 75th Texas legislature: Assessment system for special education students exempted from the Texas assessment program. Austin, TX: Author.
Texas Education Agency. (1996, Spring). Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS): Coordinator's manual. Austin, TX: Author.
Texas Education Agency. (1996, Fall). Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS): Test administrator's manual. Austin, TX: Author.
Utah State Office of Education. (1994, May). The Utah statewide testing program. Salt Lake City, UT: Author.
Washington Department of Public Instruction. (1995, Fall). Washington state assessment program: Assessment coordinator's manual. Olympia, WA: Author.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1996). The testing of students with disabilities (exceptional educational needs students), handicapped students under section 504, and limited English speaking students: DPI guidelines for non-discriminatory testing. Madison, WI: Author.