Assessment accommodations are used to meet the individualized needs of students with disabilities so that they can show what they know and can do on assessments, including state content tests (e.g., reading/language arts, math) used for accountability.1 Assessment accommodations are changes in the presentation, response, timing, and scheduling of tests that do not change what the test is measuring (AERA, APA, NCME, 2014).
In the past, only accommodations were recognized as a way to increase the accessibility of tests for students with disabilities, including English learners with disabilities.
Because of the importance of accommodations in meeting the accessibility needs of students with disabilities, the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required that states annually report the numbers of students with disabilities who were assigned assessment accommodations by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams. These numbers are reported for reading/language arts and mathematics general state assessments used for accountability to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (Rudick et al., 2023).
In the 2010s, as many states moved to technology-based assessments, states expanded their approach to providing accessibility through a paradigm shift in which they recognized that students other than those with disabilities also had accessibility needs (Larson et al., 2020). The paradigm shift involved the identification of levels of accessibility (e.g., universal features, designated features, and accommodations) (see Figure 1). Although the terms and the number of levels differed among states, the levels were similar: universal features were features available to all students; designated features were changes available to students for whom an adult or decision-making team had indicated a need; and accommodations were those changes that were available only to students with disabilities. Some states included a fourth level called administrative considerations. Most levels could include features either embedded in the test platform or external to it (e.g., provided by a human).
Figure 1. Levels of Accessibility in the Paradigm Shift
With this paradigm shift, many states revised and refined their accommodations policies. One consequence of the paradigm shift was that states’ accommodation policies often were broadened to become “accessibility policies.” Over time, many accommodations were moved to be either designated features or universal features. A consequence of the paradigm shift was that many accessibility features that once were accommodations now were available to students without disabilities; and those with disabilities who previously had been assigned them as accommodations now accessed many of them as universal or designated features. In many states, this shift reduced the number of allowed accommodations. With this reduction in the number of allowed accommodations in state policies, there was the potential for decreased numbers of students assigned accommodations.
The purpose of this Brief is to examine data on assigned accommodations that states report to the U.S. Department of Education. It also explores the implications of the paradigm shift for states and students with disabilities. We highlight what states and IEP teams can do to avoid possible unintended consequences of the paradigm shift (e.g., “inaccurate” state data, IEPs that do not reflect all of a student’s accessibility needs).
Data on the number of students with disabilities assigned accommodations have been quite variable across states since they were first required to report those data. For example, in school year 2008-09, the percentage of students with disabilities assigned accommodations in the 50 states for grade 3 math ranged from 14.5% to 92.6% and for grade 8 math ranged from 7.6% to 93.9% (Vang et al., 2012). The percentages for reading in the same year ranged from 0.5% to 92.4% in grade 3 and from 0.5% to 93.8% in grade 8. In the most recent year’s publicly available data (2021-22), the percentage of students with disabilities assigned accommodations in the 50 states for grade 3 math ranged from 0.2% to 83.6% and for grade 8 math ranged from 0.4% to 95.7% (Wu et al., 2024). For reading in the same year, the percentages ranged from 0.3% to 80.1% in grade 3 and from 0.3% to 95.7% in grade 8. The variability among states seems to have increased in the most recent years’ data.
To examine trends across 10 years (2009-10 through 2018-19),2 we identified states that had data for all 10 years (n = 19). We then examined the trends in the percentages of students with disabilities assigned accommodations for grade 6 math assessments.
Some of the 19 states with data for 10 years did not show consistent trends (n = 9); two states showed stable percentages and four states showed increases in the percentages of students assigned accommodations. Additionally, four states showed drops in the percentages of students assigned accommodations across years, possibly due to the paradigm shift (see Figure 2).
Figure 2. States with Drops in the Percentages of Students Assigned Accommodations for Math (Grade 6) from 2009-10–2018-19
When reporting data about accommodations, states with drops in the percentages of students with disabilities assigned accommodations may be concerned that it looks like they have decreased the accessibility of their assessments. States with large decreases in the numbers of students assigned accommodations indicated that they had moved what were formerly called accommodations into either the designated features or universal features tier.
It is also possible that there is variation across states in how they are reporting the data to the U.S. Department of Education. Some states might include many or all of their accessibility features when they report on the number of students assigned accommodations while other states may not. It is impossible to tell from the available data whether any states included universal features or designated features as well as accommodations when reporting to the U.S. Department of Education the number of students who were assigned accommodations.
Although the accommodations paradigm shift is a positive approach to expanding accessibility to address the needs of all students, it can have negative consequences for students and states. States or districts might decide to eliminate from their IEP forms any former accommodations that have been shifted to designated features or universal features. This might make completing an IEP form easier but potentially could have negative consequences for students. If a needed universal feature or designated feature is not documented in the IEP, the student may not have access to needed accessibility during instruction and assessment. Further, when universal features and designated features are not documented on the IEP, the need for them might not be recognized when a student transitions to postsecondary education and training or work environments.
A potential negative consequence for states is that their data on the percentage of students assigned accommodations may see drops when policies shift former accommodations to either designated or universal features. This drop could potentially result in the state’s data being flagged by the U.S. Department of Education. The Department flags data that are below the lowest quartile of all data submitted (Rule ID PartB-Assess-069). It collects data notes and explanations to include with the publicly available data.
States should consider taking several actions to avoid the possible negative consequences of the paradigm shift and the subsequent changing of their accessibility policies:
To avoid the possible negative consequences of the paradigm shift, IEP teams should consider implementing these processes:
Changes in approaches to meeting the accessibility needs of students with disabilities and other students as a result of the paradigm shift have dramatically improved the accessibility of assessments for all students and students with disabilities. Still, the paradigm shift, along with its implementation and states’ moving former accommodations to either designated features or universal features, can have negative consequences for states and students. Recognizing the potential for negative consequences and systematically identifying ways to avoid those consequences is important for states, districts, IEP teams, and students.
1 In many states, English learners can also use accommodations on these tests.
2 States were not required to report data in 2019-20, and many states’ data for 2020-21 were considered questionable because of low assessment participation rates (see Wu et al., 2023).
AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.AERA.
Larson, E. D., Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., & Liu, K. K. (2020). Paradigm shifts in states’ assessment accessibility policies: Addressing challenges in implementation. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 30(4), 244-252.
Rudick, A., Long, T., & Nagle, K. (2023). IDEA assessment data display tool for SPP/APR indicator 3.IDEA Data Center. https://ideadata.org/resources/resource/2874/idea-assessment-data-display-tool-for-sppapr-indicator-3
Vang, M., Thurlow, M., & Altman, J. (2012). 2008-2009 APR snapshot #2: Assessment accommodations use by special education students.National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/APRsnapshot/Accommodations/default.html
Wu, Y.-C., Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D. A., & Liu, K. K. (2020). Trends in accommodations assigned on general state assessments used for accountability from 2007-08 to 2016-17 (Data Analytics #13). National Center on Educational Outcomes. z.umn.edu/9g57
Wu, Y.-C., Liu, K. K., & Lazarus, S. S. (2022). 2018-2019 APR snapshot #25: Students in special education assigned assessment accommodations. National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/APRsnapshot/brief25
Wu, Y.-C., Liu, K. K., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2021). 2017-2018 APR snapshot #23: Students in special education assigned assessment accommodations. National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/APRsnapshot/brief23
Wu, Y.-C., Liu, K. K., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2023). 2020-2021 APR snapshot #29: Students in special education assigned assessment accommodations. National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/APRsnapshot/brief29
Wu, Y.-C., Thurlow, M. L., Liu, K. K., & Lazarus, S. S. (2024). 2021-2022 APR snapshot #31: State assessment participation, performance, and assigned accommodations for students receiving special education services. National Center on Educational Outcomes.
The authors of this Brief were Martha L. Thurlow, Andrew R. Hinkle, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Kristin K. Liu.
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:
Thurlow, M. L., Hinkle, A. R., Lazarus, S. S., & Liu, K. K. (2024, May). Avoiding unintended consequences of improved accessibility of state tests (NCEO Brief #35). 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