The Road to Meeting NCLB Accommodations Requirements for Students with Disabilities. National Center on Educational Outcomes Presented to the ASES SCASS February 6, 2007. Information from the peer review comments to highlight the major accommodations-related issues that need to be addressed
The Road to Meeting NCLB Accommodations Requirements for Students with Disabilities
National Center on Educational Outcomes
Presented to the ASES SCASS
February 6, 2007
Information from the peer review comments to highlight the major accommodations-related issues that need to be addressed
NCEO was asked to provide states with guidance regarding preparing for upcoming peer reviews
Review peer review sections on accommodations
Review and summarize for acceptable/insufficient examples
Organize by themes
Develop a brochure/pamphlet that includes examples and contact information
Examined peer review comments
Compiled the comments on just the sections related to accommodations, and
Ended up with three large documents (Section 4.3 = 120 pages; 4.6 = 63 pages; 6.2 = 143 pages)
Summarized and analyzed for themes
Noticed some information gaps
Finalizing examples for each theme
Finishing the draft guidance brochure
Our analysis is based on the peer reviewers’ comments and review documents from the first 10 states approved
We did not start from the evidence provided by states; we looked at evidence from only the first 10 states, and selected other states that were directly mentioned as exemplary or insufficient by the peer reviewers
The peer review process did not use a rubric, but states and peers had the Standards and Assessment Peer Review Guidance
Accommodations was just one small piece of the many things reviewers needed to consider
Crosswalk effect in terms of the corresponding critical elements and acceptable/insufficient evidence (see Section 4.3 and 4.6)
Not always easy to pull examples from documents
Some exemplars may have not been cited as such by the peers
Sometimes states were commended but not for exemplary evidence
Peer review comments sometimes indicated they saw much potential in a statement
Selection of Accommodations
Consistency of accommodations with instruction
Monitoring accommodations availability and use
Accommodations provide meaningful scores
Accommodations allow for valid inferences about students’ knowledge and skills
What the Guidance says about exemplary evidence
What the Guidance says about insufficient evidence
Recommendations for the theme
Selection of accommodations refers to the decision-making process used to determine which students should receive accommodations on statewide assessments and what accommodations are appropriate for each student.
1. Delaware’s flowchart
2. Maryland’s selection of accommodations
no distinction made among accommodations for students with IEPs, accommodations for students with 504 plans, or accommodations for students who are English language learners
CCSSO's (2005) Accommodations Manual was adopted as part of the state’s accommodations selection guidelines but not adapted to fit the state’s unique conditions
a variety of accommodations are provided, but justification for accommodations is missing
Produce a set of guidelines for accommodations that reflects a variety of options, with clear indications of when their use results in valid scores.
Differentiate accommodations for different groups of students (e.g., students with disabilities, English language learners).
Ensure that information provided to districts and others (e.g., parents, students) reflects the state’s accommodation policies, not some non-state-specific document produced by a collaborative of states or technical assistance center.
Provide tools for decision makers if possible (e.g., decision-making trees, sets of questions to ask, fact sheets) based on state accommodation policies.
Consistency of assessment accommodations with instructional approaches refers to the link between accommodations used during instruction and those used during assessment.
Alaska: “Because of the close link between assessment and instruction, the IEP or 504 plan must describe how accommodations for assessment are included in the student’s classroom instruction and assessment” (p. 13).
Providing a list of accommodations, but linkage of testing accommodations to use during instruction was not clear
No clear requirement that accommodations used during testing must have been used in instruction
No clear monitoring of the selection and use of accommodations to establish that accommodations used during testing are the same as those used for instruction
Ensure that the linkage is clearly stated – in a way that expounds what is appropriate and what is not appropriate, given the state’s assessment.
Provide decision makers with tools to help them see the distinctions and linkages between instructional accommodations and assessment accommodations.
For more information on developing assessment accommodations aligned with accommodations used during instruction, refer to CCSSO's Accommodations Manual: How to Select, Administer, and Evaluation the Use of Accommodations for Instruction and Assessment of Students with Disabilities.
Monitoring refers to tracking the use of accommodations and checking for the consistency with which they are available and used by students during instruction and during assessment.
Documents submitted in Round 2 include
2005-2006 West Virginia Guidelines for Participation in State Assessments
West Virginia Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Process.
Florida’s monitoring includes:
monitoring visits that include IEP reviews and interviews of teachers and administrators.
districts must provide assurance that students with disabilities are given appropriate accommodations.
at the time of testing, the state records information about accommodations.
the state reviews and reports information about accommodations use on the FCAT for reading and math on an annual basis.
targeted monitoring of schools and school districts is conducted. This includes reviewing records of individual students with disabilities for verification that the student received appropriate accommodations.
no evidence on monitoring
IEP team can order accommodations, but the form is a suggestion, not returned to the state
Insufficient monitoring plans, or inappropriately targeted monitoring plans
Recommendations made by peer reviewers
Surveys or observations regarding accommodations assignment (e.g. samples of IEPs compared to accommodations, larger than that proposed) followed by random audits/monitoring,
Studies comparing external judgments of proficiency (e.g. teacher ratings on standards, overall grades) with test results with and without accommodations, if possible,
Application of existing research to selection of accommodations,
Studies of the effects of invalidating modifications, particularly for the [high school proficiency exam], and
Formal reviews of literature, collection of expert judgment, and empirical evidence regarding what accommodations produce more valid scores for which students
Ensure that your state has a valid method for gathering data on which students are to receive specific accommodations in assessment, and a form to document what they receive on test day.
Document how your state analyzes its accommodations data, including timelines of analysis.
Identify a specific monitoring procedure that identifies issues in the selection of accommodations for individual students or the provision of accommodations for instruction or assessment.
Include information on any consequences that result from any irregularities in the administration of assessment accommodations.
Consider conducting studies that examine the link between IEP-determined instructional accommodations, IEP-determined assessment accommodations, and which accommodations are actually used in each location.
When used, accommodations must provide meaningful scores, ones that mean the same as scores produced by students who did not use accommodations.
In Maryland, accommodations that invalidate the score are clearly prohibited.
Not providing evidence for all assessments
Not reporting results by accommodation
Provide a logical and rational argument that demonstrates why tests administered with specific accommodations that may be considered controversial do indeed produce scores that are comparable to nonaccommodated tests, given the standards being assessed.
Identify studies that have been conducted that demonstrate the comparability of scores obtained with the accommodated and nonaccommodated assessments.
Provide results by accommodations and modifications, to clearly distinguish those that are comparable and those that are noncomparable to results from students who received no accommodations.
When used, assessment accommodations should enable the user of test results to have an accurate measure of what the student knows and is able to do. With appropriate accommodations educators can make valid inferences about students’ knowledge and skills.
Delaware dissaggregates accommodations usage, as reported in the Accountability Technical Manual
In addition, the accommodation guidelines provide which accommodations can be aggregated into the accountability system.
Reliance on the belief that if accommodations are those typically provided, they allow for valid inferences
Lack of evidence that scores from accommodated administrations are valid representations relative to standards
Conduct studies in your states on the use of accommodations by specific groups of students (e.g., category of disability, ethnic groups, etc.)
Interview students about accommodations (access to, understanding of purpose, reactions of peers, etc.) – variable that will help you understand the validity of scores that result from their use during instruction and assessment
Interview teachers to better understand the logistical constraints that impede the provision of accommodations, which in turn might reduce the validity of assessment results
Interview decision making teams to identify factors that produce a tendency to select almost every accommodation possible, thereby resulting in over-accommodation; produce a form to aid decision making to avoid overaccommodation
Themes are interconnected
Cross-walk between the themes and the guidance document
Additional recommendations that are broader/narrower than the themes
Narrow: Suggestions for states using ACT/SAT
Broad: Recommendations for clear organization of materials
Still working to pull examples to deepen themes 4 and 5
Verification with the ED Standards and Assessments Review Team
Development of the brochure