There continues to be confusion among some educators and staff in State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) about what is an accommodation and what is a modification. This confusion about accommodations and modifications happens in how these words are used in both instruction and assessment. The confusion is further compounded by the use of the term “modified curriculum” when describing the academic content taught to some students with disabilities. The misunderstandings of these terms affect how Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are written and then implemented.
The purpose of this Brief is to clarify what accommodations and modifications are for both instruction and assessment for students with disabilities. We also disentangle the use of the term “alternate or modified curriculum” from the meaning of modification used for instruction and assessment. Accommodations and modifications can also be appropriate for English learners; however, this Brief is focused on students with disabilities, including English learners with disabilities.
For students with disabilities, including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) are the guiding federal education legislation about accommodations and modifications. IDEA indicates that IEP teams need to identify individual accommodations necessary for students with disabilities on state and districtwide assessments. Additionally, among other supports, IEPs must list specific accommodations and modifications that will be provided for students. ESSA requires that appropriate accommodations be provided during state assessments to students with disabilities identified under IDEA, as well as to students who are provided accommodations under an act other than IDEA. Neither of these laws provide a definition for accommodations or modifications, nor do they address modified curriculum. Rather, they emphasize that all students are to be provided access to and make progress in the grade-level general education curriculum even if the student is taking an alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) (Sabia et al., 2020a).
Figure 1 shows that accommodations may be used for both instruction and standardized assessments, but modifications can only be used for instruction.
Figure 1. Relationships Among Accommodations and Modifications for Instruction and Assessment
The Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO) Accessibility Manualdefines accommodations as changes in procedures or materials that: (a) ensure a student has equitable access to instructional and assessment content, and (b) support valid assessment results for those students who require them (Lazarus et al., 2021). Accommodations do not reduce or change learning expectations. Generally, the same accommodations provided for instruction are provided for assessments. However, sometimes an accommodation provided for instruction may not be appropriate for an assessment. In some cases, this is because the accommodation available on the assessment is different from what is used in the classroom (e.g., an electronic highlighter is embedded in the online assessment but a highlighting marker is used in the classroom).
There are a variety of accommodations that are used for both instruction and assessment. In regard to state assessments, all states have guidance on what accommodations are allowed. Other standardized assessments should also have their own accommodations policies (e.g., standardized vendor assessments). Instructional accommodations are determined by IEP teams as per IDEA. A few examples of typical accommodations include:
Accommodations should be accessible to the student in all required school settings and provided by general educators, special educators, support staff, and related service providers.
The CCSSO Accessibility Manual(Lazarus et al., 2021) indicates that modifications are changes in practices or materials that lower state-required learning expectations. IEP teams determine whether a student needs modifications and identifies what those specific modifications are and who will be making them. Because modifications change expectations, they should be used with caution during instruction. Modifications used during instruction may result in students missing out on essential knowledge or skills. Modifications should never be used during standardized assessments because they change what is being measured, resulting in an invalid assessment score.
Examples of instructional modifications include:
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA/APA/NCME, 2014) address both accommodations and modifications as testing adaptations. They emphasize that accommodations are adjustments to the test presentation, environment, content format, or administration conditions that do not alter what is being measured by the test. Modifications are a change in test content, format, or administration conditions that alter what the test is measuring, resulting in scores that differ in meaning from scores from an unmodified assessment. Although the Standards refer only to assessment, we can apply these definitions to instructional accommodations and modifications. For instruction, use of accommodations do not alter the content that is being taught, but modifications do change (lower) the learning expectations.
In the early 2000s, some states considered AA-AAAS to be the “ultimate accommodation” and believed that accommodations were not necessary for an AA-AAAS. Since that time, the field has recognized that there are still barriers that may need to be removed for students who take the AA-AAAS. IEP teams can make accommodations available for students who take an alternate assessment. For example, many states now administer their AA-AAAS as an online computer-based assessment. Students who are unable to access the online assessment may need a paper version of the assessment as an accommodation. Other possible accommodations may include the use of accessibility devices, a braille version of the assessment, and tactile graphics.
Part of the confusion about accommodations and modifications may be due to the use of the terms “alternate or modified curriculum” in some state policies. Many states’ decision-making criteria for AA-AAAS participation require that for a student to participate in the AA-AAAS substantive modifications to the general education curriculum are required (i.e., the student uses alternate or modified curriculum standards) (Quanbeck et al., 2023). These terms have sometimes been further shortened to “alternate or modified curriculum.” Federal law makes clear that students who participate in the AA-AAAS must have access to the general education curriculum. According to Bechard et al. (2021) “students with significant cognitive disabilities are expected to engage in higher thinking and operations to accomplish more complex academic content” (p. 7). Additionally, ESEA requires that states’ AA-AAAS align with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 requirement that students who take the AA-AAAS are on track to pursue postsecondary education or competitive integrated employment (Thurlow et al., 2019). ESEA and IDEA do allow for states to have alternate academic achievement standards, aligned to grade-level academic content standards, for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take the AA-AAAS. Alternate academic achievement standards describe adjusted performance expectations for these students while still providing access to the general education curriculum.
IDEA states that a student’s IEP goals are to be designed to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum by meeting the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability (Sabia et al., 2020b). This means that the curriculum is based on the same grade-level academic content as for other students, but it can be presented in a way that reduces breadth, depth, and complexity. The curriculum is not modified because it does not change the academic content for the student (i.e., they learn the same academic content, but possibly with less depth, breadth, and complexity).
Referring to learning the same academic content with less depth, breadth, or complexity does not mean that the curriculum is different. A different curriculum is suggested by the terms alternate curriculum standards or modified curriculum standards.
The primary purpose of accommodations and modifications is to provide access to learning for students with disabilities. The major difference between accommodations and modifications is that accommodations provide access to both instruction and assessment for students with disabilities without changing expectations for their learning or performance; whereas, modifications lower performance expectations on grade level content. Modifications for instruction are not the same as a modified curriculum.
IEP teams, including students who participate in them, need to understand the differences between accommodations and modifications. Specifically,
Lee et al. (2015) identified a research-based process for creating grade-aligned lesson plans to promote numeracy and literacy skills for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities:
AERA, APA, & NCME (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. AERA.
Bechard, S., Karvonen, M., & Erickson, K. (2021). Opportunities and challenges of applying cognitive process dimensions to map-based learning and alternate assessment. Frontiers in Education, 6.
Lazarus, S., Goldstone, L., Wheeler, T., Paul, J., Prestridge, S., Sharp, T., Hochstetter, A., & Warren, S. (2021). CCSSO accessibility manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accessibility supports for instruction and assessment of all students. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).
Lee, A., Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Quenemoen, R. F., & Thurlow, M. L. (2015). AA-AAS: How do our students learn and show what they know? (NCSC Brief #3). National Center and State Collaborative.
Quanbeck, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2023). 2021-22 participation guidelines and definitions for alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (NCEO Report 440). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Sabia, R., Bowman, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. S. (2020a). Providing meaningful general education curriculum access to students with significant cognitive disabilities (TIES Center Brief #4). TIES Center.
Sabia, R., Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. S. (2020b). The general education curriculum—not an alternate curriculum! (TIES Center Brief #5). TIES Center.
Thurlow, M. L., Nye-Lengerman, K., & Lazarus, S. S. (2019). Suggestions for aligning alternate achievement standards with WIOA (NCEO Brief #16). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
The authors of this Brief were Andrew R. Hinkle, Sheryl S. Lazarus, Kascinda Fleming, and Martha L. Thurlow
NCEO Director, Sheryl Lazarus; NCEO Assistant Director, Kristin Liu
All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:
Hinkle, A. R., Lazarus, S. S., Fleming, K., & Thurlow, M. L. (2024, January). The basics of accommodations and modifications (NCEO Brief #33). National Center on Educational Outcomes.
The Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G210002) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. Consistent with EDGAR §75.62, the contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government.
Project Officer: David Egnor
NCEO works in collaboration with Applied Engineering Management (AEM), Center for Parent Information (CPIR), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), and WestEd.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity employer and educator.
This publication is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to:
National Center on Educational Outcomes
University of Minnesota
2025 East River Parkway, Room 1-330
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Phone 612/626-1530