1999 Report Summary

While statewide assessments continue to be the primary component of accountability systems, there also continues to be much variability in the accommodations and participation policies of the states. Federal law now recognizes that when students with disabilities are excluded from state or district assessments, an inaccurate understanding of student progress results. Specifically, the law requires that students with disabilities be included in state and district assessments, with appropriate accommodations if necessary. The new provisions in the reauthorization of IDEA are intended to ensure that states are not simply writing policies about how and when to exclude students with disabilities, but rather are finding ways to include all students in their assessments and accountability systems. This report documents the many changes that states are making in both their accommodation and participation policies.

Although there have been changes, there are several ways in which participation policies have remained the same from 1997 to 1999. One similarity is the continued reliance on the IEP team to help make participation decisions. A second similarity is the involvement of parents in making participation decisions. These are aspects of participation policies that we would hope would remain the same and that are supported by federal law.

Changes that have occurred over time include decreases in attention to the type of disability, and increases in attention to curricular validity or concerns about matching the assessment to course content. Finally, additional testing options are becoming more widely available, with many states allowing partial participation in testing. In stark contrast to the reports prior to 1995 is the growing number of states preparing to offer alternate assessments for students. This was occurring before the June 1997 passage of amendments to IDEA, which require that states have alternate assessments in place during the year 2000.

The 1999 data revealed that the participation criteria for state policies seem to be in a great deal of flux, likely due to the upcoming deadline for alternate assessment development. It is anticipated that the next time this document is completed, there should be only guidelines that indicate how to decide whether students with disabilities qualify for the regular assessment or an alternate assessment. But, for now, there seems to be less convergence on participation criteria than on accommodations being offered.

A significant change in the current report that has occurred since 1995 and 1997 is the addition of accommodations decision-making criteria in many states. These criteria help IEP teams make more systematic decisions, and help to ensure appropriate decisions are made regarding accommodations. The two most frequent criteria included determinations by the IEP team, and whether the accommodation was used for instruction. Several states indicated that they specifically prohibit consideration of disability category in determining accommodations (Alaska, Maryland, North Dakota, Oklahoma). No states actually indicated that this variable was allowed as a decision-making criterion. Most states simply did not comment on disability as a determining factor. Mississippi was the only state that allowed program setting to be used in the decision-making process. It is interesting to note that the same states that prohibited disability category as a determining factor also prohibited program setting as a determining factor for accommodations. Despite these advances, there continues to be a desperate need for empirical research to help policymakers as they attempt to "fine-tune" their policies.

In the current report, we started to see a re-introduction of disability category in some decision-making criteria, particularly alternate assessment participation decisions, as well as sometimes in accommodation decisions. This seems to be one way that states are trying to address concerns that students are receiving unnecessary accommodations, by restricting the availability of alternate assessments to students with severe cognitive impairments, or the use of a scribe to students with visual impairments. Whether this is a threat to providing appropriate accommodations to all students remains to be seen.

The description of accommodations as standard or nonstandard appears to be increasing. There are currently 14 states that make distinctions between standard and nonstandard accommodations. There were several trends evident in these state policies. Among the 14 states, no state described a setting accommodation as nonstandard. Only two accommodations were described that were solely listed as nonstandard accommodations (calculators and use of an aide/assistant). The remainder of the accommodations had a combination of standard and nonstandard designations across the states.

There continues to be a broadening of accommodations listed by states. However, state assessment personnel may need to think about how they describe specific testing situations, and whether they would really qualify as "accommodations," or might be better represented in a section in their manuals on what is appropriate testing for all students. For example, using pencil grips or long, well-sharpened pencils are listed by states as accommodations-are these really different from what would be allowed for all students?

Overall, it is apparent that many states have been doing a great deal of work on the participation of students with disabilities in their assessments, and ways to accommodate students. Even before legal mandates were put in place (e.g., IDEA), many states had taken the initiative to work toward including all students in their assessments, and by implication, holding schools accountable for the education of every student who attends.