A State Discussion Guide to Understanding, Developing
and Sustaining Balanced Assessment Systems That Are
Inclusive of All Students

 

THE COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, and five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions. CCSSO provides leadership, advocacy, and technical assistance on major educational issues. The Council seeks member consensus on major educational issues and expresses their views to civic and professional organizations, federal agencies, Congress, and the public.

Kirsten Baesler (North Dakota), President
Carissa Moffat Miller, Chief Executive Officer

 

THE NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

The National Center on Educational Outcomes 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.

Sheryl S. Lazarus, Director
Kristin K. Liu, Assistant Director

 

The authors of this guide were Sheryl S. Lazarus, Virginia A. Ressa, and Sandra H. Warren.

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

Lazarus, S. S., Ressa, V. A., & Warren, S. H. (2024). A state discussion guide to understanding, developing and sustaining balanced assessment systems that are inclusive of all students. Council of Chief State School Officers and National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Council of Chief State School Officers
One Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001-1431
Phone (202) 336-7000
Fax (202) 408-8072
www.ccsso.org

National Center on Educational Outcomes
University of Minnesota
2025 East River Parkway, Room 1-330
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Phone 612/626-1530
http://www.nceo.info

© 2024 by the Council of Chief State School Officers and National Center on Educational Outcomes, A State Discussion Guide to Understanding, Developing and Sustaining Balanced Assessment Systems That Are Inclusive of All Students, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. It is available at https://ccsso.org/.

Table of Contents

 

Executive Summary

This state discussion guide provides an overview of balanced assessment systems that are inclusive of all students, including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities. Historically, little attention has been given to how to include these student groups in some of the assessments (e.g., formative assessment practices, classroom tests, interim assessments and summative assessments) that comprise balanced assessment systems, resulting in incomplete data and limited discussions about their learning. To have data that are useful for many purposes, it is crucial to include all students in balanced assessment systems from the outset. Building organizational cultures where there is a shared responsibility for all students supports improved instruction and outcomes. This resource was collaboratively developed by the members of the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO’s) Assessment Standards and Education for Students with Disabilities (ASES), Balanced Assessment Systems (BAS) and English Learner Collaboratives in partnership with the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).

Inclusivity, coherence, continuity, comprehensiveness, utility, efficiency and fairness guide the development of balanced assessment systems (Wylie & Landl, 2024). For each of these properties, this guide considers the implication for inclusivity and contains questions to consider. Specific considerations for students with disabilities (including students who have significant cognitive disabilities, sensory disabilities or complex communications needs), English learners and English learners with disabilities are addressed.

Consistency in assessment approaches across different offices within state education agencies (SEAs), as well as between state and local education agencies (LEAs), can facilitate the inclusion of students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities. Leadership plays a crucial role in shaping a vision that values the learning of all students and utilizes high-quality assessment data for decision-making. Collaborative planning and discussions that include special educators, English language development specialists and general educators are essential for designing inclusive assessment systems. Clear policies on accessibility features and accommodations are needed at both the SEA and LEA levels. By prioritizing inclusivity, implementing accessibility features and accommodations and providing alternate assessments when needed, educational stakeholders can develop comprehensive and equitable balanced assessment systems that support improved learning outcomes for all students.

State Strategies for Developing and Sustaining Balanced Assessment Systems That Are Inclusive of All Students

There are several overarching ways state leaders can support the development and implementation of balanced assessment systems that are inclusive of all students.

Table of Contents

 

Overview

Assessments serve many purposes. Different types of assessments are used for different purposes at each level of the educational system (e.g., state, district, school and classroom). In the past, there often was a focus on state tests used for accountability. There is now widespread recognition across state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) of a need for thoughtfully designed balanced assessment systems that go beyond state accountability and provide stakeholders with valid data (e.g., scores, ratings) that can be interpreted and used to make critical decisions. The properties of a balanced assessment system, as defined by the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO’s) Balanced Assessment Systems (BAS) Collaborative, include coherence, continuity, comprehensiveness, utility, efficiency and fairness (Marion et al., 2019; National Research Council, 2001; Wylie & Landl, 2024). Assessments that directly or indirectly inform teaching and learning are a key component of these systems. Historically, however, little attention has been given to how to include all students, including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities, in many of the assessments that comprise balanced assessment systems (Abedi & Sanchez, 2021; Lazarus et al., 2021; Quenemoen & Thurlow, 2019). In addition, there may be a lack of common language and definitions regarding balanced assessment systems and inclusivity (Thurlow et al., 2020; Wylie & Landl, 2024). Building organizational cultures where there is a shared responsibility for all students supports improved instruction and outcomes (Tefs & Telfer, 2013). For information on the characteristics of students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities, see Appendix A.

When some students (e.g., students with disabilities, English learners, English learners with disabilities) are excluded from assessments in a balanced assessment system, the data are less useful for decision making, and discussions about the extent of these students’ learning may be omitted when classroom, school or district data are analyzed. Additionally, federal regulations and court cases require the inclusion of all students in statewide and districtwide assessment administrations. See Appendix B for additional details about the federal regulations.

Similarly, data for some marginalized students are often considered by only one department rather than all adults in a school taking responsibility for the learning of all students, which can negatively affect access to grade-level standards-based instruction and ultimately outcomes. Discussions at all levels of the educational system may be omitting important data from historically marginalized student groups and perpetuating organizational silos that lack critical information about student learning. To successfully provide instruction that supports improved outcomes for all students, including culturally and linguistically diverse students and struggling learners, it is vital that data from all students are included when instructional decisions are made.

In an inclusive system, all students are considered during all phases of the development, implementation and evaluation of the system. According to Thurlow et al. (2016, p. 4), “All students are included in every aspect of a comprehensive assessment system, including participation in the assessments, the reporting of data, the use of data for various purposes, and the improvement strategies that grow out of data reviews.”

Purpose

State members of CCSSO’s Assessment Standards and Education for Students with Disabilities (ASES), Balanced Assessment Systems (BAS) and English Learner Collaboratives noted that across offices within their organizations there often are very different understandings of what constitutes a balanced assessment system. To address this need, the three Collaboratives partnered with the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) to develop this guide. It is designed to facilitate discussions within SEAs about the characteristics of a balanced assessment system that is inclusive of all students and how to create and sustain such a system. This will enable SEAs to better support their LEAs in creating and sustaining balanced assessment systems that prioritize inclusivity. This guide contains considerations for the inclusion of all students, including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities in balanced assessment systems. This guide also includes considerations for students with sensory disabilities (e.g., visual impairment/blindness, deaf/hard of hearing, deafblind), students with complex communications needs and students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who may participate in an alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS).

This guide builds on prior and current work of the Collaboratives, including the BAS white paper, A Common Language for Discussing the Goals, Characteristics and Components of Balanced Assessment Systems (Wylie & Landl, 2024). While that paper focuses on the importance of balance across types of assessments and their purposes, this resource focuses on how to ensure that balanced assessment systems are inclusive. The BAS paper provides this definition for inclusivity:

A system that is inclusive ensures the performance of all students, including students with disabilities and English learners, is accurately and appropriately represented in the data used by stakeholders to inform educational decision-making. (Wylie & Landl, 2024)

Process

During CCSSO’s Fall Collaborative Meetings in October 2021, the ASES and BAS Collaboratives discussed and explored the principles and properties that make balanced assessment systems truly inclusive. In 2022, they were joined by the English Learner Collaborative. See the section on Principles of a Balanced Assessment System That Includes All Students and Appendix C for details about the principles that underlie this resource.

Members of the three Collaboratives then identified a need for a state discussion guide. At that time, participants were invited to volunteer to participate in a critical partners group that would meet virtually three times during spring 2023 to create this resource. Twenty-two “critical partners” volunteered. They included members of each of the three Collaboratives. See Appendix D for more details regarding how the Collaboratives, SEAs and other stakeholders were involved in the development of this guide.

Table of Contents

 

Inclusivity is Part of Balanced Assessment Systems

Properties of Balanced Assessment Systems, Implications for Inclusivity and Discussion Questions

The BAS Collaborative identified the properties of a balanced assessment system. These properties include coherence, continuity, comprehensiveness, utility, efficiency and fairness (Marion et al., 2019; National Research Council, 2001; Wylie & Landl, 2024). All of these properties have implications for including all students in a balanced system. Table 1 expands on each of the properties of a balanced system by examining the implications for inclusivity. State teams may want to discuss the questions listed in the Implications for Inclusivity column to help ensure that the state’s plans related to balanced assessment systems are inclusive of all students.

Table 1: Properties of Balanced Assessment Systems and the Implications for Inclusivity

Properties Definition1 Implications for Inclusivity
Coherence Coherence considers whether the nature and structure of each assessment reflects a common understanding of how students come to acquire knowledge and understanding within a content domain, as defined within the content standards and enacted curriculum. A coherent system plans for all students to access grade-level content standards and includes assessments that are accessible and allow all students to demonstrate their progress toward those standards.

Questions to Consider:
How does the state ensure that all students have access to grade-level content standards?
How do all students access assessments to demonstrate their progress toward grade-level content standards?
How does the state promote a common understanding of how all students acquire knowledge and skills and demonstrate their learning?
Is there a common understanding of how students, including all students with disabilities and English learners with disabilities, acquire knowledge and skills and demonstrate progress toward grade-level content standards?
Continuity A system that demonstrates continuity provides information that allows stakeholders to effectively monitor student progress over time. Continuity of information that represents the learning of all students is needed by stakeholders to make critical decisions.

Questions to Consider:
Does the system collect data that will enable effective monitoring of the progress of all students, including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities, over time?
How does the assessment system collect and make available data to support instructional decision-making and monitor progress for all students?
How does the state support the use of data to monitor progress?
What is the state doing to improve continuity of data?
Comprehensiveness Within a comprehensive system, students have multiple opportunities and ways to demonstrate learning, providing a broad profile of unique evidence by which to support educational decision- making. A comprehensive balanced assessment system provides all students, including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities, with multiple ways and opportunities to demonstrate learning.

Questions to Consider:
How does the state support an assessment system that allows all students to demonstrate their learning in multiple ways?
How do the components of the balanced assessment system represent the principles of universal design?
How does the state support implementation of a wide array of accommodations and alternate assessments when needed?
Utility A system that demonstrates utility provides stakeholders with the type and amount of information necessary to support the intended purposes of assessment and specified uses of results. Systems have more utility and inferences made from the data are more valid when stakeholders are provided information that includes data for all students.

Questions to Consider:
How are data reported for all students and subgroups of students?
Do staff know how to use the data collectively for all students, as well as how to dig deeper into the learning for subgroups of students?
What are the state’s expectations for commercial assessment vendors to document accessibility features and appropriateness for all students?
What are the state’s expectations for commercial assessment vendors to show evidence of universal design?
How does the state provide guidance and support for the appropriate use of data?
Efficiency An efficient system is one that supports the specified information needs of stakeholders with as few high-quality assessments as possible. It is important to think strategically about which assessments are useful and which may be duplicative. Students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities are some of the most tested students. There is a need to be mindful of the purpose and use of data from assessments, with the goal of gathering needed data through the administration of as few assessments as possible.

Questions to Consider:
Are data from each assessment being used for at least one purpose?
Does each assessment provide unique information?
Are any assessments duplicative?
Which assessments or assessment administrations can be used to gather data for multiple purposes (e.g., making instructional decisions, identifying areas of need)?
Fairness A system that is fair ensures the performance of all students, including students with disabilities and English learners, is accurately and appropriately represented in the data used by stakeholders to inform educational decision making. A characteristic of a system that is fair is that it includes all students.

Questions to Consider:
Are all students included in the system?
How can the state ensure that all students are included in the system?
Do the data accurately and appropriately indicate the performance of students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities?
Are the ways of demonstrating learning universally designed with accommodations for those who need them (with alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities, when needed)?
How does the state ensure that educators and test administrators know how to provide accessibility and accommodations for each assessment in the system?

1 Definitions taken from Wylie & Landl, 2024.

Considerations for Students with Disabilities, English Learners and English Learners with Disabilities

Students with Disabilities

Universal design may reduce the need for accommodations, but there will continue to be a need for accommodations for some students. Knowing students well, including their characteristics and needs, is key to understanding how to ensure that the assessments that comprise the balanced assessment system are accessible. Accessibility and accommodations decisions should be guided by identifying the individual needs of the students in relation to the tasks required by the assessment and the construct being assessed (NCEO, 2015).

The individualized education program (IEP) team makes accommodations decisions for the state summative test and they are documented in the IEP. For some of the other assessments that comprise a balanced assessment system (e.g., formative assessment practices, classroom tests), decisions about how to make an assessment accessible are made by the educators involved in creating and administering the assessment. Both general educators and special educators should be involved in developing accessible assessments and in making accommodations decisions when needed. General educators have content knowledge and special educators have a deep understanding of accessibility. It can sometimes be challenging to find time to discuss accessibility needs, but it is extremely important. Finding even a few minutes to discuss how to make a formative assessment practice more universally designed (as well as to discuss the accommodations some students may need) can support much more effective assessment practices.

There are some additional considerations for students with significant cognitive disabilities, students with sensory disabilities and students with complex communications needs. Those considerations are described next.

Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities.Students with significant cognitive disabilities have improved outcomes when taught in inclusive settings (e.g., Gee et al., 2020; Mansoui et al., 2022; Ryndak et al., 2012). Research also shows that placement in inclusive settings increases student access to the general education curriculum (Quirk et al., 2017; Sauer & Jorgensen, 2016; Soukup et al., 2007).

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that students with significant cognitive disabilities be provided with access to and make progress toward mastering grade-level academic content standards and general education curriculum expectations. State tests used for accountability are aligned to performance expectations as defined by the state’s academic content standards. However, the performance expectations are different for students with significant cognitive disabilities who participate in alternate assessments (AA-AAAS). For students who take the AA-AAAS, there are alternate academic achievement standards that define their expectations. AA-AAAS are intended to reflect content that is linked to the state’s grade-level academic content standards at an appropriate breadth and complexity level. Following federal peer review guidance, states may choose to develop extended academic content standards “to support the alignment between the State’s grade-level academic content standards and the content of the [alternate] assessments” (U.S. Department of Education, p. 38). The achievement standards may indicate which content should be prioritized, but they should not be used to restrict instruction because students are often able to learn more than what is on the state test (Sabia et al., 2020).

The use of formative assessment practices is part of effective instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities. As with other students, generating valid and meaningful data is important for making instructional decisions and improving outcomes. This involves consideration of the purposes for collecting the data and the different ways students demonstrate their learning.

All students with disabilities, including those with the most significant cognitive disabilities, are required to participate in all statewide and districtwide assessment administrations. If a student with significant cognitive disabilities is unable to participate in a general assessment, even with accommodations, then an alternate assessment needs to be provided. It is important to articulate the purpose and use of an assessment, which can then provide guidance for an alternate assessment. For example, interim assessments are sometimes part of a balanced assessment system. They might be used for a variety of purposes (e.g., to measure progress/growth, to predict summative assessment performance, etc.). Depending on the target domain, and the intended use of the data, the alternate assessment may take various formats (Browder et al., 2021). Browder et al. (2021) gives several examples of how the purpose of an assessment intersects with how it might be adapted for an alternate assessment. For example, if the purpose of an interim assessment is to measure performance on a narrow set of skills or standards, then it might be adapted for an alternate assessment by conducting a “quick assessment of a high priority skill/standards such as comprehension of one read-aloud passage or solving one math problem” (p. 5).

For additional information about considerations for students with significant cognitive disabilities who are also English learners, see the subsection on English learners with disabilities.

Students with Sensory Disabilities.Students with sensory disabilities (e.g., blind or visually impaired, deaf/hard of hearing, deafblind) need to be able to access the assessments that comprise a balanced assessment system in ways that allow them to meaningfully show what they know and can do. This means that it is important to provide accessibility features and accommodations that will enable them to access the assessments (e.g., Braille, read aloud, graphic organizers, sign language interpretation, etc.).

For many students with sensory disabilities, assistive technology or human access assistants are important components of accessibility. Examples for students who have hearing impairments or are deaf include embedded videos of American Sign Language (ASL) and sign language interpreters. Examples of assistive technology for students who have visual impairments or are blind include screen readers, refreshable Braille devices and Braille note takers. Students who are deafblind may benefit from the above examples of assistive technology as well as tactile signing and interveners. A challenge of using sign language and tactile signing interpreters is that it can be difficult to train them on how to appropriately sign an assessment; however, careful training and documentation of the interpreter’s assurance of adherence to assessment procedures can address this challenge.

Formative assessment practices can be planned so they are inclusive and accessible to students with sensory disabilities. For example, a small group activity used to gather formative assessment data might have each group measure the perimeter of a cardboard rectangle. If there is a visually impaired student in a class, students could be provided with rulers, including a Braille ruler to measure the sides, as well as a talking calculator or abacus to enter the numbers for the calculation of the perimeter.

Students with Complex Communication Needs.Some students have complex communication needs. A critical part of participation in a balanced assessment system is effective communication with others. All students need to be able to show what they know and can do. Some students use communication methods other than oral speech to express thoughts and ideas. They may use a variety of communicative forms (e.g., eye gaze, pointing, speech- generating devices). Students who use a method other than oral speech need to have another system for communication in place (Kearns, 2022; Kleinert et al., 2010). If a student does not have a communication system in place, it is vital to establish one so that the student is able to demonstrate what they have learned.

Including students with complex communication needs in a balanced assessment system in the general education classroom requires additional planning for general and special education teachers as well as related service providers (e.g., speech-language pathologists, physical and occupational therapists and vision/hearing specialists). This collaboration involves meeting on a regular basis to plan how to make formative assessment practices accessible, solve problems, select accessibility features and accommodations needed to implement the lessons and assessments and maximize student participation. This collaboration might be quick five-minute meetings to touch base or longer meetings when more extensive planning is needed. A regular meeting schedule (e.g., weekly, biweekly, monthly) that can be maintained should be developed. Email and other forms of electronic communication can be used between meetings to address issues as they arise (Kleinert et al., 2019).

Students who are deafblind are one group of students who have complex communications needs. Furthermore, there is evidence that students who are both deafblind and have significant cognitive disabilities have less access to the general curriculum than their peers (Karvonen et al., 2021), especially if their dual sensory loss is not recognized (NCDB/ATLAS, 2022). Collaboration across team members is vital to including these students in both instruction and assessments. Students with deafblindness may have many educators and related service providers who are involved in planning how to include these students in balanced assessment systems. Time for collaboration can be limited and it is important to identify ways to support collaboration. One strategy for expanding access is to use concrete objects to make assessments accessible for students who are deafblind. For example, if a second grade class is working on a standard that addresses determining whether a set of objects has an odd or even number of members, a formative assessment small group activity might be to sort manipulatives into sets that contain either an odd or even number of manipulatives.

English Learners

When English learners have the right accessibility features and accommodations to meaningfully access the assessments that comprise the balanced assessment system, the data are more likely to be valid and reliable. However, it can be challenging for teachers of English learners to understand how to align accessibility supports across instruction and assessment.

Both general education teachers and English language development specialists should be involved in making assessments more accessible and in making accommodations decisions. General education teachers have a better understanding of the content, while English language development specialists will know how the students acquire language and have a better understanding of their accessibility needs. Bartlett (2021) recommends an asset-based approach that will support cultural differences and a variety of assessment methods.

English Learners with Disabilities

English learners with disabilities, like other students with disabilities, are instructed in the same general education grade-level, standards-based curriculum as their peers. They are held to the same achievement standards as other students (or for those with significant cognitive disabilities, to alternate academic achievement standards). Additionally, like other English learners, they are to be held to the same grade-level English language proficiency (ELP) standards for reading, writing, speaking and listening (with some held to alternate ELP achievement standards), with the exception of the very few English learners with disabilities who may be exempt from one or more domains of the ELP assessment (e.g., deaf/hard of hearing who may be exempt from the listening domain).

English learners with disabilities have both language- and disability-related needs and may need accommodations that address both disability and language as they participate in the assessments that comprise the balanced assessment system. For English learners with disabilities, this includes participation in the ELP assessments (or for those with significant cognitive disabilities, the alternate ELP assessment).

Table of Contents

 

Principles of a Balanced Assessment System That Includes All Students

The members of the ASES, BAS, and English Learner Collaboratives developed a set of principles that can support the development of balanced assessment systems that include all students, including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities.

Principle 1: There is a need to create balanced assessment systems that include all students.

SEAs and LEAs are currently in the process of developing robust balanced assessment systems. Many students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities have historically been underrepresented in or even excluded from assessments. In the past, assessment systems were designed to support “most students,” and a lot of retrofitting was required to make the system work well for all students. It works better to be inclusive from the start and begin with the end in mind. A focus on universal design and accessibility with attention to the inclusion of students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities during development supports the creation of balanced assessment systems that more validly measure what these students know and can do. State and local staff need to share responsibility for creating balanced assessment systems that include all students. An overall vision for a balanced system of assessments that is inclusive helps ensure that the evidence produced, the inferences made and the actions taken are based on complete data.

Principle 2: Data are most useful for many purposes (e.g., measuring progress, instructional decision-making, accountability, systems evaluation, etc.) when all students, including students with disabilities and English learners, are included in all assessments.

For data to be most useful to stakeholders at all levels of an assessment system (state, district, school, classroom), those data must represent all the students in the system. This means that assessments must be accessible to all students and validly measure the learning of all students (Brookhart & Lazarus, 2017; Browder et al., 2021; Lazarus et al., 2021). According to Lazarus, Brookhart et al. (2022), “When student groups are not included in assessments, such as students with significant cognitive disabilities or students with disabilities who are English learners, then discussion about the extent of these students’ learning may be omitted whenever district, school or classroom data is considered. Discussions at all levels of the system that value their learning may be absent” (p. 86).

Principle 3: Sustained focus on accessible instructional and assessment materials is critical to achieve improved educational outcomes of all students.

The principles of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018) and universal design of assessments (Johnstone et al., 2006; Lazarus et al., 2022, Liu & Anderson, 2008) provide guidance for creating accessible instructional and assessment materials that promote rigorous learning for all students. Using a universal design approach will improve accessibility and will support the creation of assessments that validly measure the knowledge and skills of the wide variety of students who take them. Assessments that are developed using the principles of universal design can reduce the need for accommodations. Universal design is an approach that involves considering how to make an assessment accessible right from the start of the development and design process. This is important because it provides all students with an opportunity to demonstrate what they know and can do and improves the overall fairness of the assessment.

Principle 4: Successful outcomes (including college and career readiness) for students with disabilities and English learners require access to grade-level instruction based on rigorous standards and a coherent system of curriculum, instruction and assessment aligned with learning needs to support these learning outcomes.

It is imperative that students with disabilities and English learners, including English learners with disabilities, be provided access to instruction and assessment aligned to rigorous, grade-level standards. As part of a balanced assessment system, standards set the expectations for curriculum, instruction and assessment. Universal design, with accessibility features and accommodations for those who need them, makes instruction and assessment accessible and supports students in meeting high expectations and achieving successful outcomes.

Principle 5: Districts should maintain a focus on consistent, high-quality, culturally responsive and linguistically responsive implementation of effective practices.

Identification and implementation of effective practices requires the use of high-quality data, primarily at the school and classroom levels, to determine what works in a given context. It is important that educators, policymakers and other stakeholders consider the needs of all students when using data to determine effective practices that are culturally and linguistically responsive and representative of all students.

Principle 6: Students with disabilities and English learners are general education students first. Every student has diverse strengths, preferences and needs. Balanced assessment systems acknowledge student diversity and this diversity impacts making instruction and assessments inclusive and accessible.

Students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities are first and foremost general education students, meaning they should be afforded access to all general education instruction and assessment, just as their peers. They also have the right to additional supports through special education or English language proficiency instruction and assessment.

Table of Contents

 

State Strategies for Developing and Sustaining Balanced Assessment Systems That Are Inclusive of All Students

This guide provides an overview of balanced assessment systems as it applies to creating and sustaining systems that are inclusive of all students, including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities. The principles developed by members of CCSSO’s ASES, BAS and English Learner Collaboratives can serve as a foundation for creating inclusive systems. The discussion questions in Table 1 (Properties of Balanced Assessment Systems and the Implications for Inclusivity) can support useful discussions across SEA offices. Additionally, there are several overarching ways state leaders can support the development and implementation of balanced assessment systems that are inclusive of all students. These include:

Table of Contents

 

Conclusion

This guide outlines strategies for states to develop and maintain balanced assessment systems that are inclusive of all students, including those with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities. It builds on the work of CCSSO’s Collaboratives to provide discussion questions and strategies for SEAs as they work to make their assessment systems more balanced and inclusive of all students including students with disabilities, English learners and English learners with disabilities.

Key strategies include both the development of a vision for assessment that values the learning of all students and the implementation of clear internal and external communication plans. SEAs need to support LEA leaders as they work toward inclusive assessment systems locally, keeping in mind the unique needs of different student groups. Individuals with expertise in special education, English learners and English learners with disabilities should be included in the development of the shared vision for a balanced assessment system. Lastly, an essential part of improving assessment systems is providing resources that inform families, communities and other stakeholders about the need for assessment systems that are inclusive of all students.

A diverse group of children in their classroom, and female teacher in the back

Table of Contents

 

References

Abedi, J., & Sanchez, C. (2021). Historical milestones in the assessment of English learners. In B. E. Clauser & M. B. Bunch (Eds.), The history of educational measurement (1st ed., pp. 87-110). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780367815318-5/historical-milestones-assessment-english-learners-jamal-abedi-cecilia-sanchez

Bartlett, H. (2021, September). Assessments and accommodations for English language learners: A literature review. The Nebraska Educator. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=nebeducator

Brookhart, S., & Lazarus, S. S. (2017). Formative assessment for students with disabilities. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/Formative_Assessment_for_Students_with_Disabilities.pdf

Browder, D. M. (2015). Standards-based individualized education programs (IEPs) for students who participate in AA-AAS (NCSC Brief #5). National Center and State Collaborative. http://www.ncscpartners.org/Media/Default/PDFs/Resources/NCSCBrief5.pdf

Browder, D. M., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2021). Alternate interim assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (NCEO Brief #23). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOBrief23.pdf

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Gee, K., Gonzalez, M., & Cooper, C. (2020). Outcomes of inclusive versus separate placements: A matched pairs comparison study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(4), 223-240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920943469

Hakuta, K. (2020). A policy history of leadership dilemmas in English learner education. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(1), 6-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1714665

Hopkins, M., Weddle, H., Castillo, M., Costa, J., Edwards, K., Elliot, S., Gautsch, L., Lowenhaupt, R., & Salas, V. (2022). Upholding multilingual learners’ civil rights under ESSA and beyond: State leadership and the contextual factors shaping federal policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 128(4), 591-616. https://doi.org/10.1086/720362

Johnstone, C., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2006). A state guide to the development of universally designed assessments. National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/StateGuideUD/UDmanual.pdf

Karvonen, M., Beitling, B., Erickson, K., Morgan, S., & Bull, R. (2021). Students with significant cognitive disabilities and dual sensory loss. Co-published by Accessible Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Systems (ATLAS) and the National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCDB). https://www.nationaldb.org/media/doc/NCDB_Student_Characteristics_Report_a.pdf

Kearns, J. (2022). Creating communication opportunities and tracking progress (TIP #29). TIES Center. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/ties/communicative-competence-tips/creating-communication-opportunities

Kleinert, J., Holman, A., McSheehan, M., & Kearns, J. F. (2010). The importance of developing communicative competence for students with significant cognitive disabilities. University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center. https://intelligentlives.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2010-Kleinert-McS-Communicative-Competence.pdf

Kleinert, J., Kearns, J., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L. & Lazarus, S. S. (2019). Communication competence in the inclusive setting: A review of the literature (TIES Center Report 103). TIES Center. https://ici-s.umn.edu/files/K-gxmnGDc_/ties-center-report-103

Kearns, J., Kleinert, J., & Vandercook, T. (2019). Using collaborative teams to support students with significant communication needs in inclusive classrooms (TIP #2). TIES Center. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/ties/communicative-competence-tips/using-collaborative-teams-to-support-students-with-significant-communication-needs-in-inclusive-classrooms

Lazarus, S. S., Brookhart, S., Ghere, G., & Liu, K. K. (2022). Improving local assessment practices for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 35(2), 86-98. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1370346.pdf

Lazarus, S. S., Fleming, K., Ressa, V. A., & Ghere, G. (2023, January). Suggestions for involving students in selecting and implementing accommodations (NCEO Brief #30). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOBrief30.pdf

Lazarus, S. S., Hinkle, A. R., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., & Ressa, V. A. (2021). Using interim assessments to appropriately measure what students with disabilities know and can do: Advisory panel takeaways and NCEO recommendations (NCEO Report 427). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport427.pdf

Lazarus, S. S., Johnstone, C. J., Liu, K. K., Thurlow, M. L., Hinkle, A. R., & Burden, K. (2022). An updated state guide to universally designed assessments (NCEO Report 431). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport431.pdf

Liu, K. K., & Anderson, M. (2008). Universal design considerations for improving student achievement on English language proficiency tests. Assessment for Effective Intervention33(3), 167-176. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1534508407313242

Liu, K. K., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., Jarmin, J., Ward, J., & Christensen, L. (2020). Updated assessment principles and guidelines for English learners with disabilities (NCEO Report 424). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport424.pdf

Mansouri, M. C., Kurth, J. A., Turner, E. L., Zimmerman, K. N., & Frick, T. A. (2022). Comparison of academic and social outcomes of students with extensive support needs across placements. TASH, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/15407969221101792

Marion, S. (2018). The opportunities and challenges of a systems approach to assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 45-4. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324214256_The_Opportunities_and_Challenges_of_a_Systems_Approach_to_Assessment

Marion, S., Thompson, J., Evans, C., Martineau, J., & Dadey, N. (2019, April 4-8). A tricky balance: the challenges and opportunities of balanced systems of assessment. Center for Assessment. Systems of Assessment. National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) Annual Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://www.nciea.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/A-Tricky-Balance_031319.pdf

McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for students with cognitive disabilities: Is the cup half empty or half full? Can the cup flow over?(Synthesis Report 55). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/publications/OnlinePubs/Synthesis55.html

National Center on Deaf-Blindness (NCBD) & Accessible Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Systems (ATLAS). (2022). Identifying dual sensory loss in students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (NCDB/ATLAS Brief #1). https://www.nationaldb.org/info-center/students-significant-cognitive-disabilities-dual-sensory-loss/

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2022). Students with disabilities. Fast Facts. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64

National Center for Education Statistics. (2023a). English learners in public schools. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2023b). Students with disabilities. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). (2013). Identifying students with disabilities who are eligible to take an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (Fact Sheet). In M. L. Thurlow, S. S. Lazarus, & S. Bechard (Eds.), Lessons learned in federally funded projects that can improve the instruction and assessment of low performing students with disabilities (pp. 154-163). (Reprinted from Identifying students with disabilities who are eligible to take an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards [Fact Sheet], 2007, NCEO.) https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/LessonsLearned.pdf

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). (2015). Making accessibility decisions for ALL students (NCEO Brief #11). https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/briefs/brief11/NCEOBrief11.pdf

National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10019

Perie, M., Marion, S., & Gong, B. (2009). Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 28(3), 5-13. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00149.x

Quenemoen, R. F., & Thurlow, M. L. (2015, June). AA-AAS: Defining high expectations for students with significant cognitive disabilities (NCSC Brief #2). National Center and State Collaborative. http://www.ncscpartners.org/Media/Default/PDFs/Resources/NCSCBrief2.pdf

Quenemoen, R. F., & Thurlow, M. L. (2019). Students with disabilities in educational policy, practice, and professional judgment: What should we expect? (NCEO Report 413). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport413.pdf

Quirk, C., Ryndak, D. L., & Taub, D. (2017). Research and evidence-based practices to promote membership and learning in general education classrooms for students with extensive support needs. Inclusion, 5(2), 94-109. https://doi.org/10.1352/2326-6988-5.2.94

Ryndak, D., Alper, S., Hughes, C., & McDonnell, J. (2012). Documenting impact of educational contexts on long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 127-138. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23880094

Sabia, R., Bowman, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Lazarus, S. S. (2020). Providing meaningful general education curriculum access to students with significant cognitive disabilities (Brief #4). TIES Center. https://ici-s.umn.edu/files/Ay4cXYTgh7/ties-brief-4-providing-meaningful-general-education-curriculum-access-to-students-with-significant-cognitive-disabilities

Sauer, J. S., & Jorgensen, C. M. (2016). Still caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of least restrictive environment and its effect on placement of students with intellectual disability. Inclusion, 4(2), 56-74. https://meridian.allenpress.com/inclusion/article-abstract/4/2/56/1245/Still-Caught-in-the-Continuum-A-Critical-Analysis?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 101-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707400106

Tefs, M., & Telfer, D. M. (2013). Behind the numbers: Redefining leadership to improve outcomes for all students. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 26(1), 43–52. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1013157

Thompson, S. J., Lazarus, S. S., Clapper, A. T., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006). Adequate yearly progress of students with disabilities: Competencies for special education teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/08884064060290020

Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Christensen, L. L., & Shyyan, V. (2016). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment systems in a changing assessment landscape. (NCEO Report 400). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/Report400/NCEOReport400.pdf

Thurlow, M., Lazarus, S. S., & Johnson, D. (2015). Student assessment inventory for school districts: Considerations for special education assessment systems. Achieve. https://issuu.com/achieveinc/docs/considerations_special_education_as

Thurlow, M. L., Warren, S. H., & Chia, M. (2020). Guidebook to including students with disabilities and English learners in assessments (NCEO Report 420). National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/NCEOReport420.pdf

Umansky, I. M., Hopkins, & Dabach, D. B. (2020) Ideals and realities: An examination of the factors shaping newcomer programming in six U.S. school districts, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(1), 36-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1712731

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.). IDEA 618 data products: Static tables. Office of Special Education Programs. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2018a). Individuals with disabilities education act. Part 300 (Part B) – Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities. Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b

U.S. Department of Education. (2018b). A state’s guide to the U.S. Department of Education’s Assessment Peer Review Process. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/assessmentpeerreview.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Students with disabilities who are English learners (Els) served under IDEA Part B. OSEP Fast Facts. Office of Special Education Programs. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-students-with-disabilities-english-learners

U.S. Department of Education. (2020). The top languages spoken by English learners in the United States. Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA). https://ncela.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2023-02/OELATopLanguagesFS-508.pdf

Wakeman, S. Y., Karvonen, M., Flowers, C., & Ruhter, L. (2021). Alternate assessments and monitoring student progress in inclusive classrooms. In J. McLeskey, F. Spooner, B. Algozzine, & N. L. Waldron, (Eds.), Handbook of research and practice for inclusive schools (2nd ed., pp. 302-321). Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003043874-15/alternate-assessments-monitoring-student-progress-inclusive-classrooms-shawnee-wakeman-meagan-karvonen-claudia-flowers-lindsay-ruhter

Wylie C., & Landl, E. (2024). A common language for discussing the goals, characteristics and components of balanced assessment systems. A white paper developed for the Council of State School Officers Balanced Assessment Systems Collaborative.Washington DC: CCSSO.

Table of Contents

 

Appendix A

The Characteristics of Students with Disabilities, English Learners and English Learners with Disabilities

Students with Disabilities

Students with disabilities who have an individualized education programs (IEP) are identified as having one or more disabilities from one or more of the 13 federally defined disability categories (autism, deafblind, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury and visual impairment including blindness). States may also use developmental delay as a category for children ages 3 through 9.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) (2022), 15 percent of the nation’s total school enrollment are students with disabilities who receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Across states, the percentage of students with IEPs served by IDEA ranged from 11 percent to 20 percent of the total public school enrollment (NCES, 2023b). As shown in Figure 1, the most frequently identified disability category was specific learning disability (33.8%), followed by speech or language impairment (17.9%) and other health impairment (16.3%). Only 5.9 percent of students had intellectual disabilities.

Students with disabilities do best in classrooms with a culture of inquiry, where differences are respected and risk-taking is encouraged (Brookhart & Lazarus, 2017; Thompson et al., 2006). The identification of a student for special education services and their possible placement in an alternate setting do not determine which state assessment they should take, how assessment processes are carried out or how assessment results are used. Not all students with disabilities are low performing; on the flip side, some low-performing students do not have disabilities (NCEO, 2013).

Access to the general education curriculum is critical and is required by federal laws, such as IDEA and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). For students with disabilities, it is important to remember that an IEP does not take the place of curriculum; the grade-level content reflected in state standards is the basis of the curriculum. States can support access to grade-level content through discussions and guidance regarding how different students could demonstrate progress toward the required knowledge and skills. There will not be a one-to-one correspondence between an IEP goal and a state standard as there is in a lesson plan. The IEP may contain additional life, social, communication or foundational skills goals that do not necessarily link to state standards for the assigned grade level (Browder, 2015; Sabia et al., 2020).

Figure A-1. Students with Disabilities by Disability Category, 2022-23

Pie Chart: Students with Disabilities by Disability Category, 2022-23

*Other disabilities combined includes multiple disabilities (1.7%), hearing impairments (0.9%), orthopedic impairments (0.4%), traumatic brain injury (0.3%), visual impairments (0.3%), and deafblind (less than 0.03%).

Data source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Child count and educational environments, 2022-23. Population: age 6-21 in 50 states.

In addition to the tests that all students take, including students with disabilities, students being evaluated for special education services take assessments that help determine whether they have a disability that requires educational services. IDEA does not identify specific assessments or types of assessments for either the initial evaluation or for evaluations for continuation of services. It does indicate that a variety of assessment tools and strategies should be used to gather functional, developmental and academic data. Districts and schools have a lot of flexibility in which assessments they use (Thurlow et al., 2015).

English Learners

English learners are students working toward proficiency in English and thus are eligible for English language development (ELD) services. English learners are a rapidly increasing group. According to federal data, the percentage of English learners in schools increased by 28 percent over the last 20 years. More than 10 percent of all students are English learners (NCES, 2023a). Across states, the percentage of students who are English learners ranges from less than 1 percent to more than 20 percent. Schools and districts are becoming much more culturally and linguistically diverse. There has been tremendous growth in the number of English learners in school districts in both new and traditional immigrant destinations (Hopkins et al., 2022). English learners who are recent immigrants may be unfamiliar with the U.S. school system (Umansky et al., 2020).

There is great diversity within the English learner population, which brings unique assets and strengths to the U.S. educational system. An asset-based approach to instruction can create a culture that supports success. As shown in Figure 2, English learners most commonly speak Spanish (75.7%). Other common languages include Arabic (2.4%), Chinese (1.7%), Vietnamese (1.7%) and Portuguese (0.6%).

Figure A-2: Languages Spoken by English Learners, 2019-20

Pie Chart: Languages Spoken by English Learners, 2019-20

Data Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of English Language Acquisition (2020)

There are several groups of English learners:

In addition to taking academic assessments (e.g., reading/language arts, math, etc.), students whose primary language is not English take English language proficiency (ELP) assessments. They are used to measure students’ English proficiency in four domains: reading, writing, speaking and listening skills. There are different types of ELP assessments. Screening assessments help LEAs identify English learners who are eligible for services. Annual state ELP assessments, which are used for ESEA accountability, are used to identify students who are ready to exit from services (Hakuta, 2020; Hopkins, et al., 2022).

English Learners with Disabilities

English learners with disabilities are students who are working toward English proficiency and who have both disability- and language-related needs. According to federal data, English learners with IEPs accounted for 12 percent of all students with IEPs or a little less than 2 percent of all school-age children (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). Figure 3 shows the disability categories identified for English learners with disabilities. More than 40% of them are identified as having a specific learning disability as their primary disability. English learners with disabilities are required to participate in either the ELP or ELP alternate assessment, which is designed for English learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Figure A-3. Disability Categories of English Learners with Disabilities, 2022-23

Pie Chart. Disability Categories of English Learners with Disabilities, 2022-23

*Other disabilities combined include emotional disturbance (1.7%), multiple disabilities (1.2%), hearing impairments (1.1%), orthopedic impairments (0.4%), traumatic brain injury (0.3%), visual impairments (0.3%) and deafblind (less than 0.02%).

Data source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. Child count and educational environments, 2022-23. Population: includes age 6-21 in 50 states.

Table of Contents

 

Appendix B

Federal Assessment Participation Requirements for Students with Disabilities, English Learners and English Learners with Disabilities

Research has established that what a student can be expected to achieve should not be based on the student’s characteristics or label (McGrew & Evans, 2004; Quenemoen & Thurlow, 2015, 2019). Federal regulations, going back to the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA, require students with disabilities and English learners to be included in state and district assessments. The 2002 reauthorization of ESEA known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) added accountability requirements that all students participate in state assessments based on academic content standards. Additionally, NCLB added a requirement for an ELP assessment. The standards-based reforms recognized the importance of ensuring all students have access to rigorous grade-level, standards-based academic content. Over the past several decades, there has been much work on how to create more inclusive educational environments for all students.

As under NCLB, the 2015 reauthorization of ESEA, also known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires that all students, including students with disabilities and English learners, have the opportunity to learn standards-based, grade-level academic content. Title I of ESSA requires the inclusion of all students in assessments used for federal accountability (Sec. 1111(2)(B)(i)(II)). Additionally, Title III of ESSA focuses on ensuring that English learners attain English proficiency and meet the same challenging academic content and achievement standards to which other students are held. For students with disabilities, this is reinforced by IDEA. IEP goals are to be designed to “meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum” (300.320(a)(2)(i)(A)) (U.S. Department of Education, 2018). Students with significant cognitive disabilities who participate in the AA-AAAS may learn grade-level content at less breadth, depth and complexity than other students (Quenemoen & Thurlow, 2015).

IDEA requires that students with disabilities be included in all statewide and districtwide assessment administrations. Most students with disabilities take general assessments, with or without accommodations. A few students with the most significant cognitive disabilities may take an alternate assessment. The regulations state:

A State must ensure that all children with disabilities are included in all general State and district-wide assessment programs, including assessments described under section 1111 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 6311, with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments, if necessary, as indicated in their respective IEPs. (Sec. 300.160(a)) (U.S. Department of Education, 2018)

There are several federal laws and court cases that support the provision of improved services to English learners. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs that receive federal funding. Title VI requires that reasonable steps are taken to make programs, including instruction and assessment, accessible to English learners. Another civil rights law, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), requires SEAs and LEAs to take appropriate actions to address language barriers that impede the equal participation of English learners. A foundational Supreme Court decision, Lau v. Nichols, found that the San Francisco school district failed to provide non-English-speaking Chinese students with equal educational opportunities, and that all students, regardless of native language, are entitled to “a meaningful opportunity to participate in the educational program.”

Table of Contents

 

Appendix C

Principles, Recommendations and Takeaways That Inform Inclusive Balanced Assessment Systems

In addition to the set of principles that can support the development of balanced assessment systems that include all students that were jointly developed by the ASES, BAS, and English Learner collaboratives, several other sets of principles have been developed through extensive processes with stakeholders that can provide guidance on inclusive assessment (Browder et al., 2021; Lazarus et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020; Thurlow et al., 2016). These principles go by different names, including principles, recommendations and takeaways.

NCEO Principles and Characteristics of Inclusive Assessment Systems

NCEO’s Principles and Characteristics of Inclusive Assessment Systems (Thurlow et al., 2016) include all students and address all types of assessments in assessment systems. The development and revision of these principles involved multiple stakeholders with the common goal of improving outcomes for all students. The principles are:

Principle 1: Every policy and practice reflects the belief that all students must be included in state, district and classroom assessments.

Principle 2: Accessible assessments are used to allow all students to show their knowledge and skills on the same challenging content.

Principle 3: High-quality decision-making determines how students participate in assessments.

Principle 4: Implementation fidelity ensures fair and valid assessment results.

Principle 5: Public reporting content and formats include the assessment results of all students.

Principle 6: Continuous improvement, monitoring and training ensure the quality of the overall system.

NCEO Interim Assessment Takeaways

Interim assessments are typically a component of balanced assessment systems. NCEO convened a group of experts to identify issues and make recommendations for SEAs about how to enable all students with disabilities, including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and English learners with disabilities, to participate in interim assessments in ways that yield valid inferences about what they know and can do. This group made several recommendations it called “Takeaways for SEAs” (Lazarus et al., 2021) that can inform the inclusion of all students in balanced assessment systems:

Related work by Browder et al. (2021) focused on considerations for alternate interim assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Browder emphasized the need to clarify the purpose and use of the interim assessment for which an alternate is needed.

Assessment Principles for English Learners with Disabilities

Liu et al. (2020) identified a set of principles and characteristics for assessing English learners with disabilities. This work was focused on the inclusion of English learners with disabilities in large-scale assessments, but many of the principles and characteristics are applicable to all the assessments that comprise a balanced assessment system.

Principle 1. Content standards are the same for all students.

Principle 2. Test and item development include a focus on access to the content, free from bias, without changing the construct being measured.

Principle 3. Assessment participation decisions are made on an individual student basis by an informed IEP team.

Principle 4. Accommodations for both ELP and content assessments are assigned by an IEP team knowledgeable about the individual student’s needs.

Principle 5. Reporting formats and content support different uses of large-scale assessment data for different audiences.

Summary of Previously Existing Sets of Principles

Principles spell out how organizations and systems relate to new or unknown situations. They essentially describe what is valued and can serve as a foundation for a practical, actionable approach to making decisions that reflect the values of stakeholders. The principles and takeaways described above (Browder et al., 2021; Lazarus et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2020; Thurlow et al., 2016) were not developed specifically to guide the development of balanced assessment systems, however, as a group they provide an extensive basis that can shape the development of a sustainable balanced assessment system that values the learning of all students.

Table of Contents

 

Appendix D

Involvement of the CCSSO Collaboratives and Other Stakeholders in Development of State Discussion Guide

The members of the ASES, BAS and English Learner Collaboratives guided the development of this State Discussion Guide. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) worked with the Collaboratives to address needs identified by the Collaborative members. Specifically, input was gathered: