Jane L. Ewing, Ed.D.

Paul V. Sherlock Center

on Disabilities

at Rhode Island College

IEP Teams and Assessment Accommodation Decisions:

Recommended vs. Implemented

What is the relationship between

• Instructional accommodations

• Recommended assessment accommodations (IEPs)

• Accommodations used during state assessments?

Methodology• Observed 66 students in 9 schools during

classroom instruction and state assessments.

• Gathered data from 107 IEPs, including those of observed students.

• Interviewed assessment proctors, monitors, administrators.

Major Findings

• Location was the better predictor of accommodations during tests, rather than IEPs.

• Students testing together received same “package” of accommodations, regardless of IEPs.

Major Findings

• Test accommodations were not individualized or developed from students’ instructional accommodations.

• Seeming lack of awareness how to tailor assessment accommodations to individual students’ testing needs.

Institutional Capacity: a zero-sum game?

• Condensed testing schedule (March to May in 2002; March only in 2003)

• Growing numbers of students needing

accommodations

• Increased number of high-stakes assessments added to the schedule (ex., NAEP added to RI in 2003)

• No additional resources

Decision Making Resources• State assessment guidance 40%• Feedback of students’ teachers 11%• Students’ IEPs 7%• Individual student need 4%• Supervisor’s guidelines 3%• Classroom accommodations 2%

General Educators: Not Full Partners

• I have very little involvement as an IEP team member. My input is rarely sought.

• I am asked to sit in on IEP meetings infrequently. To be honest, most decisions on accommodations are made without my input.

• I do not have a part in this process. I don’t have the training or the knowledge. I don’t make decisions.

• I have never been given information on how to assess a special education student, but I have requested it.

Special Educators• Accommodations were determined by

students’ prior teachers and staff.

• Follow-through on assessment accommodations was almost always the job of the Special Education department.

• State trainings: test facilitation only

Special Educators• Elementary special educators preferred

to proctor/implement for their own students.

• High school students could decline their accommodations; often proctored by staff who did not know the students at all.

Instruction and Assessment• Significant difference between the level of support

received during instruction and assessment

• Students may benefit from instructional accommodations but do not receive assessment accommodations in any way comparable.

• Respondents reported basing all accommodations

on “individual need of student” yet few had individualized accommodations during tests (e.g., scribing, readers, flexible schedule).

2002 Assessments• Alternative settings – anywhere from 7 to

15 students, each with different IEPs but all receiving the same accommodations

• Regular setting – students on IEPs in cafeteria but none of the monitors could identify

• Proctor with one or two students – settings were not quiet (e.g., library where class is being held)

2002 State Assessment

Accommodations

HS Students (N=31)

IEP OBS

MS Students (N=16)

IEP OBS

EL Students(N=19)

IEP OBS

Alternate location 15 22 6 13 13 14

Oral administration of directions

7 20 2 11 12 16

Directions repeated, clarified

10 16 10 12 10 13

Extended time 26 23 12 12 17 19

Frequent breaks 6 0 1 2 7 14

2003 Follow Up• Greater agreement between recommended and

implemented assessment accommodations for this year’s smaller sample of students (N=39)

• Similar to 2002, 2003’s 5 most commonly recommended assessment accommodations were also the most frequently implemented and most generic.

• Students had on average more instructional accommodations (5), compared to test accommodations (3).

• Instructional accommodations were more specific and based on individual student needs.

2003 State Assessment

Accommodation

HS Students(N=17)

IEP OBS

MS Students(N=5)

IEP OBS

Elem Students(N=17)

IEP OBS

Alternate location

15 17 5 5 17 17

Oral administration of directions

1 17 3 5 3 17

Directions repeated, clarified

3 0 5 5 13 17

Extended time 16 17 5 5 14 17

Frequent breaks 0 0 0 0 14 17

High school students• 2003 sample had fewer assessment supports

both recommended and implemented than lower grades.

• Consistently had 2 recommended accommodations, alternate location and extended time.

• Often given oral administration of directions, though rarely recommended on their IEPs.

• Students rarely took extended time.

Comparison of AccommodationsStudent 4 Instructional Accommodations State Testing Accommodations

1. Extra time to complete work 2. limit number of assignments 3. Scribe 1-2 sentences of written

work to get him started. 4. Modify homework/complete

unfinished work at school. 5. Modify spelling – 10 words

only 6. Limit copying from board. 7. Homework notebook for

organization 8. Seat near teacher away from

distractions

1. Flexible schedule 2. Extra time 3. small group 4. frequent breaks 5. alternate location 6. directions repeated/clarified

Comparison of AccommodationsStudent 5 Instructional Accommodations State Testing Accommodations

1. Frequent breaks 2. Homework pad for organization 3. Folders for papers to be

completed and finished work. 4. Highlighted key math words in

directions 5. Repeat directions 6. Model different ways to

calculate math problems 7. Highlight operations -, +, x, - 8. cue upcoming transitions 9. Make frequent checks for

comprehension 10. Spelling – 12 words

1. Flexible schedule 2. extra time 3. quiet testing area 4. free from distraction

11 STUDENTS oral administration of math tests

(28% of the 2003 sample)• Teacher reading math test to student if

needed (3 middle school students)• Oral administration of math assessment (3

elementary students)• Key words highlighted in math directions (1

elementary student)

11 STUDENTS Oral administration of math tests

• Reader (2 high school students)

• Tests read orally (1 high school student)

• Should be read to (1 high school student)

But was it implemented …?• Few proctors had the math read-aloud

listed on their accommodations sheets.

• Proctors occasionally re-read problems to students during the math assessments in the middle and elementary grades.

But was it implemented …?

• IF the proctor/aide was familiar with the student’s needs or IEP, the student was more likely to receive an IEP recommended accommodation.

• In most cases, proctors did not know the students.

Other “Unusual” Accommodations

• Check for comprehension• Use of calculator • Access to computer • Flexible schedule for testing • “Keywords highlighted in directions”• Preferential seating• Alternative setting free of distractions

And the implementation…• Monitors did not noticeably check

more frequently.

• Many students allowed calculators.

• Student decided not to use a computer.

• Classroom teacher/proctor decided “flexible scheduling” was not necessary.

And the implementation…

• Keywords highlighted – translated as “read-aloud.”

• Preferential seating – students choose their own seats.

• Alternative settings were too full to be quiet.

Conclusions

Student-centered assessment accommodations – scribing, reading assistance, 1-on-1 support – required resources and preparation that schools did not produce.

Conclusions• Proctors not sure how to implement

accommodations such as scribing or support.

• Assessment accommodations that parallel instructional accommodations not available to students during state assessments.

School-level basics …• Proper training for proctors

• Clear guidelines on individualized accommodations to increase confidence in discretionary decision making

• Appropriate rooms for testing

• Use of computers and other AT

Other Possible Changes in Practice

• Provide additional state-sponsored training for proctoring staff, not just administration (test security, etc.)

• Hold school-based sessions with leadership personnel to clarify “what is permitted.”

Other Possible Changes in Practice

• Develop IEPs during same school year in which student will participate in state assessments.

• Insure that both classroom and assessment personnel participate.

• Promote individualized accommodations that approximate instructional support during assessments.