2003 Report Summary

State policies on participation and accommodations continue not only to evolve, but to evolve at a rapid pace. In addition to the increased rate of change, the volume of written materials regarding participation and accommodations also is increasing. Many states now have a variety of documents (e.g., policies, administrative codes or rules, procedures, and training materials) that provide guidance.

The 2003 analysis provides a brief glimpse into many of the complex issues related to the participation of students with disabilities in state accountability systems through answers to the questions raised at the beginning of this report. Another question was raised but not reported here because of difficulty verifying the data-What happens to the scores of students with disabilities who use nonstandard accommodations during statewide assessments? Nearly one-third of states had no information in their policies on the scoring consequences of using nonstandard accommodations. Many states indicated some type of consequence would occur such as the scores would be coded differently, scores would not be aggregated, or students automatically would be given the lowest possible score. Key findings from this study were:

• "States continue to specify criteria that can and cannot be used to guide the process of determining how a student will participate in state assessments. The most frequently cited criteria that can be used were instructional relevance/instructional goals, current performance/level of functioning, level of independence, and student needs and characteristics. Commonly cited criteria that could not be used to make participation decisions were presence or category of disability, cultural, social, linguistic, and/or environmental factors, and student absences.

• "More states are allowing all students to use accommodations.

• "States continue to use a variety of criteria to guide the process for making decisions about student use of accommodations during assessment. Most states specify that the use of instructional accommodations be considered when making decisions on assessment accommodations. Another frequently cited criterion that states used is whether the accommodation resulted in an unfair advantage or maintained the validity of the assessment. Some states specifically prohibited decision-makers from using certain criteria when making accommodation decisions. Commonly listed criteria that could not be used included nature/category of disability, instructional setting/program setting, and percent time/amount of services received.

• "There was variability among state policies relative to the use, and consequences of using, a nonstandard accommodation.

• "Changes in the types of accommodations used were most evident in the clarifications and specifications attached to specific accommodations in state policies, specifically concerning the implications for resulting scores. More states documented specific equipment and material, scheduling/timing, and setting accommodations in 2003 than did in 2001. The most controversial accommodations continued to be read aloud (questions), calculator, spellchecker, and proctor/scribe.

• "Many states provided guidance for IEP teams or IEP team members on the use of accommodations that were not on an approved list. Most required that decision makers seek the approval of an outside entity, such as the state board or department of education before recommending the use of an accommodation not included on the approved list.

• "Many states have guidelines that specify the roles and responsibilities of other humans who assist in the administration of certain accommodations (scribes, readers, and sign language interpreters, for example); however, there was great variability in the breadth and depth of these guidelines.

Some of the other circumstances that permitted students to be excluded from the general assessment may be a cause for concern. For example, one state policy indicated that a student may be excused from testing if required accommodations could not be provided. Another state policy stated that students may be exempted due to lack of cognitive ability and lack of exposure to material within the range and scope of the test.

The present report provides updated answers to questions asked in previous reports and included several new questions that yielded important information about emerging features of state participation and accommodation policies. It is clear that as policies on existing topics evolve and new topics emerge, the overall picture of participation and accommodations for students with disabilities will become increasingly complex.