IEP Teams and Assessment Accommodation Decisions: Recommended vs. Implemented

1. IEP Teams and Assessment Accommodation Decisions:Recommended vs. Implemented Jane L. Ewing, Ed.D. Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College

2. What is the relationship between • Instructional accommodations • Recommended assessment accommodations (IEPs) • Accommodations used during state assessments?

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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%

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. 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)

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.

16. 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.

17. Comparison of Accommodations

18. Comparison of Accommodations

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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.

25. And the implementation… • Keywords highlighted – translated as “read-aloud.” • Preferential seating – students choose their own seats. • Alternative settings were too full to be quiet.

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

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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.”

30. 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.