1 / 13

Inclusions Regulation Testing Situations

Explore various testing situations in education to decide if they are violations or not, with references to page and paragraph numbers. Includes examples of acceptable and unacceptable practices.

lelia
Download Presentation

Inclusions Regulation Testing Situations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inclusions Regulation Testing Situations Decide if the situation is a violation or not a violation. Cite the page and paragraph number from the document(s) to support your decision. DRAFT

  2. Situation 1 Scribe wrote answers on sheet of paper for a student with disabilities who can have a scribe. Student was required to copy answers into a Student Response Booklet as he had done throughout the school year. Not a Violation Page 18-19 – Inclusions Use of Scribes DRAFT

  3. Situation 2 Student hospitalized for severely broken leg (in traction). Homebound teacher administered the test to the student in the hospital. Not a Violation Page 5 – Inclusions Summary, paragraph 4 Page 13 – Section 4, part B DRAFT

  4. Situation 3 Students had similar answers, but had not copied. It was determined that one had listened intently as another dictated answers to scribe. Violation Page 9 – Administration Practices Not Acceptable, paragraph 1 DRAFT

  5. Situation 4 Student has a learning disability that significantly impacts her reading ability. Her IEP states materials may be presented orally. The guidance counselor had her come to his office so he can read the test to her. Not a Violation Page 9 – Administration Practices Not Acceptable, paragraph 1 Acceptable, paragraph 1 DRAFT

  6. Situation 5 A school needs to use multiple scribes and readers with special education students. The school schedules these scribes and readers to provide accommodations at the same time in a single room. Violation Page 9 – Administration Practices Not Acceptable, paragraph 1 DRAFT

  7. Situation 6 The district has three new students that have been identified as needing specific accommodations to be included in a 504 Plan. The ARC immediately develops a plan, close to testing, which will allow the students to use the accommodations for instruction and during testing. Not a Violation Page 6 – Inclusions 2a, b, c DRAFT

  8. Situation 7 A student routinely uses a word processor with word prediction as outlined in his 504 Plan and uses both features for state assessments. Not a Violation Page 9 – Administration Practices Acceptable, paragraph 1 Page 6 – Inclusions 2a, b, c DRAFT

  9. Situation 8 Documentation of a student’s IEP is shared with the proctor that will be administering the state assessment to the student. Not a Violation Page 9 – Administration Practices Acceptable, paragraph 1 DRAFT

  10. Situation 9 A proctor questions student use of a personal cueing notebook which seems to be very content specific. Additional investigation finds that all special education students have the exact same notebook. Violation Page 22-23 – Inclusions Prompting and Cueing DRAFT

  11. Situation 10 Student was taking the math portion of the KCCT. He used from his prompting and cueing notebook, a cue card with multiple mathematical formulas and sample problems. Violation Page 23-24 of the Inclusions document Use of Prompting and Cueing DRAFT

  12. Situation 11 A student with illegible handwriting was given a scribe . Violation Page 18-19 of the Inclusions document Use of Scribes DRAFT

  13. Situation 12 Five LEP students were purposely assigned the same form of the test so one interpreter could work with all the students at the same time. Not a Violation Page 11 – Inclusions Section C, 1, paragraph 2 DRAFT

More Related