1993 Report Process Used to Review State Policies

Statewide assessment systems, which exist in 49 of 50 states and other educational entities, reflect a range of approaches to both the inclusion of students with disabilities in assessments, and the nature of accommodations and modifications that are allowed. It is useful to examine the array of approaches that currently are being implemented because these approaches may provide guidelines as to what is considered both appropriate and reasonable for assessments of individuals with disabilities.

Inextricably linked with testing accommodations and modifications that are allowed are the states' policies regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide assessments. Therefore, we examine in this section both the policies of eligibility for participation in statewide assessments and the nature of current accommodations and modifications that are allowed by states.

In Table 4 we present a summary of the eligibility criteria used by states. The formal written policies for these criteria are presented in Appendix A. It is obvious from Table 4 that many different decision rules are used to determine whether a student is included in a state assessment. Furthermore, a state may have different rules for norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. In making decisions about which students with special needs to include or exclude from testing, states typically consider criteria based on disability category, degree of impairment, percentage of time the student is mainstreamed, or percentage of time the student is receiving special services. Frequently, they consider more than one of the above variables. Some states look at more fine-grained variables, such as specific courses for which the student is mainstreamed (e.g., reading or math versus music or art). Sometimes consideration is given to whether the student's instructional objectives match those measured by the test. And, frequently the opinion of the parent or guardian is factored into the decision about inclusion in large-scale assessments.

The inclusion/exclusion issue merges with the accommodation issue in that some states consider whether a test can be adapted for a student with special needs and still maintain its validity. If this appears to be impossible or unfeasible, the student may be excluded from testing. As one state indicated in its written guidelines, "exclusion should be considered as the most extreme modification of the assessment."

In Table 5 we present a summary of the accommodations that are allowed by states according to written guidelines. The formal written policies for these are presented in Appendix B. It is obvious from Table 5 that there is a tremendous variance in the number and types of accommodations allowed in the 21 states with written guidelines. At least one state (and probably the only state) is not included in this table even though it includes all students with disabilities in its state assessments. Kentucky is fully inclusive (with 2% of its students in an alternative portfolio assessment system), yet does not allow any modifications in testing.

In those states with written guidelines on modifications, the most common types of modifications were to allow alternate presentations, such as Braille versions of a test, oral reading of questions, and so on. The area of alternate presentations, however, was also the one for which the greatest number of modifications were prohibited. Specific prohibitions were made for the use of oral reading, video, or signed presentations in 8 of the states reviewed, but 13 states did not have this strict prohibition. In general, states allow students to receive questions orally or signed if the questions are not designed to test reading ability. New York and Ohio were the only states of those reviewed here that did not make a distinction between the appropriateness of reading or signing certain test items. Georgia and Tennessee do not allow any questions to be presented orally or signed to their examinees. Few states (only 5) allow the interpretation of directions. Yet, Georgia is the only state that specifically prohibits interpretations of directions within its written guidelines. The use of calculators and slide rules during exams is another type of alternate presentation that appears to be controversial. Most states do not identify this possible accommodation, but Maine and Virginia allow calculators to aid students during standardized exams if the student normally uses such aids during instruction. Florida and Texas, on the other hand, specifically prohibit this accommodation. For both these states, calculator or slide rule use is viewed as likely to invalidate the test.

The use of alternate settings for assessment was also relatively frequent within the states reviewed here. Furthermore, none of the states specifically prohibited these types of modifications in testing. The use of alternate scheduling or timing approaches was somewhat less frequent, and also had some states specifically prohibiting them. The provision of more time, while specifically allowed by 8 of the 21 states, also was specifically prohibited by two of the states (Delaware and Tennessee). The allowance of more breaks during testing was allowed by 9 states, but specifically prohibited by Maryland.

Among the most infrequently identified accommodations was using partial exclusion of some subtests. This was identified as an allowable accommodation in both Maine and Massachusetts. Another thought-provoking accommodation (see Georgia) is the use of out-of-level testing (defined as using a test designed for a lower grade lever than the one in which the student is placed).

Several states refer to decision-making bodies within their guidelines. For example, four states (Alabama, Connecticut, Maine, and Maryland) indicate that any accommodations that are used must be based on approval of an appointed committee. Three states (Georgia, Indiana, and Maine) indicate that accommodations must be based on accommodations allowed during classrooms activities. By far the most frequent decision-making influence included in the written guidelines is the IEP committee. The IEP committee was identified by 11 states.