Accommodation Considerations for Assessment: Case Study of a Middle School Lizanne DeStefano & James Shriner Univer

1. Accommodation Considerations for Assessment: Case Study of a Middle SchoolLizanne DeStefano & James ShrinerUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

2. Background and Context

3. Project PAR: Participation, Accommodation and Reporting DeStefano & Shriner (1998) DeStefano, Shriner & Lloyd (2001) Shriner (2000) Shriner & DeStefano (2001) Shriner & DeStefano (2003) OSEP Grant# H324D980070

4. Conceptual Framework Connection between access to general education curriculum and participation Relationship between planned (IEP) accommodations and actual assessment accommodations “Six Scenarios” for participation/accommodation (Preceded 1% and 2% possibilities)

5. Project PAR Questions What types of assessment participation and accommodation decisions are documented in students’ IEPs? What is the relationship between assessment participation and accommodation decisions on students’ IEPs and the actual assessment scenarios used? What is the nature of post-training change (if any) of documented assessment decisions on IEPs?

6. IDEA 1997:IEP/Assessment/Accommodation status Testing participation highly variable. Departure from IEP during testing quite common – Logistics and desire for improved performance. Very little concern about curricular and/or skill/access issues.

7. Summary of Key Findings IEP teams made more consistent and defensible assessment decisions after intervention Members more confident in assessment/accommodation decisions Agreement between planned and actual accommodations was improved Intervention was intensive and longitudinal

8. Caveat and Limitations PAR activities conducted in relation to state assessment - district assessment not tracked. “Day of” testing data was primarily teacher survey report – <10% (n=30) of all test participants were observed.

9. Project IEP-D: Improving Education Professionals’ Decision Making Advance local-level decision-making in an era of NCLB and IDEA Work with local teams of administrators, lead teachers, and other decision makers in effective means of collection, interpretation and communication of assessment, accommodation and instructional data for programmatic and policy decisions. OSEP Grant # H325N020081

10. IEP-D Activities / Considerations School-level focus: Middle School Considerations: Use of data—NCLB - AYP Accommodations/Participation Feeder School – size and variability Principal and SPED Director had similar focus

11. Feeder School Information • 6 Elementary → 1 Middle School • No Elementary School has Minimum Number of Students with Disabilities to report as AYP subcategory Feeder Schools

12. Feeder School Information District Achievement Data (Group): Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) Variation across Feeder schools Differences between general and special education Middle School is receiving students with disabilities who are performing at about same level as 3rd grade, Gen. Ed.

13. Accommodation Use Documented on IEP form Minimal information about actual selection, planning and use Input of Gen. Ed. Teachers unknown

14. Focus on Fall ITBS Testing TEAM Concept -- Commitment of both Gen. Ed. and SPED personnel Opportunity to “practice” in lower stakes environment Multi-step accommodation documentation Day of Testing observation/comparative information Fall ITBS Test Accommodation Data

15. Fall ITBS Test Accommodation Data Management / Logistics proved challenging 10 “missing” students Alternative placements not tracked Sought to check “routine” practices vs. accommodations Limited awareness of Gen. Ed. practices and SPED “value added” accommodations

16. Fall ITBS Accommodation “Findings” Observations suggested overall supportiveness of general education environment - Data forms did not. Fall data collected by teacher NOT by testing sessions Pull out testing in special education classroom not always better than testing in general education classroom Caused us to ask: What is real benefit to SPED Pullout accommodation?

17. Fall ITBS Accommodation Issues SPED teachers likely to be multi-tasking More “chaotic” at times SPED “accommodation” may have negative Cognitive, Social/Behavioral, & Affective consequences from student perspective Limited consistency across testing environments

18. Fall Feedback : Decision-Makers Pleased to have Fall data Team approach needed to be carried through to testing Training for each team prior to Spring (State) Tests Overt consideration of “Routine and/or required” testing supports (accommodations?)

19. Technical Assistance In-person T.A. during 2nd quarter Teams participated in: In-service Discussion Case Studies Problem Solving

20. Technical Assistance Review IEP-planned accommodations Check connection of IEP with Instructional accommodations Plans for Spring testing Fall ITBS Results: Reading/Math

21. Spring Testing – Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) Staff more concerned with ISAT than ITBS Routine Practice and Gen. Ed. Accommodation data gathered by testing session Observation and Forms gathered daily ISAT Accommodation Results

22. ISAT Accommodation Results General Ed. Environment provided more than “default” accommodations/supports listed in testing manual Supportive, NOT Unethical No Scheduling changes in Gen. Ed.

23. ISAT Accommodation Results State changed “read aloud” rule at last minute to allow small group administration Staff thought Spring testing was better process Similar to PAR: On Day of testing, people make decisions to assign/deliver more accommodations than planned IEP-SAT Accommodation Agreement

24. IEP – ISAT Accommodation Agreement Summaries across accommodation types (Setting, Scheduling, Presentation, Response) and students yield moderate kappa values, and suggest Over-representation of accommodations on IEPs. HOWEVER -- For Individual Accommodations, IEPS tended to Under-represent accommodation use. (nearly 3:1 ratio)

25. IEP – ISAT Accommodation Agreement Often, accommodations of a “social/behavioral” nature were provided, though not on IEP E.g., Redirection, Praise, Encouragement Many students got similar packages of accommodations (c.f. Elliott, Kratochwill, & McKevitt, 2001)

26. Actions of School Decision-Makers Used achievement pattern and accommodation data to make 2 key changes 1. Accommodations Monitoring Form Routine use and Helpfulness 2. Team “Reconstitution” Reassign students with disabilities across teams Accommodations Monitoring Form

27. Fall 2005 ITBS Testing 2005 ITBS Testing

28. Summary and Conclusions Limited tracking of accommodation plans and use Limited awareness/involvement of Gen. Ed. Teachers (despite their overall good work with respect to accommodations)

29. Summary and Conclusions School personnel (both Gen. Ed. And SPED) came to understand and incorporate input from Gen. Ed. Student feedback (though not focus here) addressed cognitive and affective “setting events” and attitudes. “I’d rather stay in the math room.”

30. Summary and Conclusions Begin accommodation planning / use monitoring in elementary grades. Address “inconsistency” and “chaos” of SPED – pullout accommodations. Enhance Gen. Ed. Environment to better support students with disabilities.

31. Summary and Conclusions Investigate if/how accommodation decision changes will mesh with IDEA 2004 provisions for “minor changes” as provided in Proposed §300.324. What data will support an accommodation change decision? Address valid vs. invalid accommodation documentation needs (2% NPRM)