2005 Report Summary

The 2005 participation and accommodation policies continue to reflect the conclusion reached by Clapper et al. (2005) for the 2003 policies:

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 both written and online materials regarding participation and accommodations is also increasing. Many states now have a variety of documents available online (e.g., policies, handouts for parents and teachers, training materials, rules and procedures) that provide guidance (p.23).

There are also a number of additional noteworthy changes since 2003 that are summarized here.

In many cases the language in the participation policies is becoming more detailed and seeks to clarify when and how students with disabilities participate in statewide assessments. The policies also now focus more on the assessment and on current information about the students rather than on historic data. For example, many more states in 2005 included current performance or level of functioning, content purpose or nature of assessment, and student needs and characteristics as participation policy variables that can be used to make decisions about how students with disabilities participate in statewide assessment than had in 2003. Many more states also now indicate that excessive absences and cultural, social, linguistic, and environmental factors may not be considered in the decision-making process. In 2005, fewer states allowed the consideration of instructional relevance/instructional goals when decisions were made about how students with disabilities will participate than in the past.

As with participation policies, we found that the language in the accommodation policies has become more specific. Historically, accommodations were sometimes seen as a way to enable some students with disabilities to participate in statewide assessments, and there was often little consideration of when it was appropriate to use a given accommodation. That approach is changing. For example, more states are now distinguishing between accommodations that can be used on a math test (but not a reading test). We also found that there continues to be wide variability in accommodation policies across states. The current research base that seeks to validate accommodations remains limited (although growing); our results indicate that states are continuing to grapple with how to appropriately use accommodations to enable some students with disabilities to meaningfully participate in statewide assessments. According to Thurlow, Thompson, and Lazarus (2006), "states now seem to be honing in on the need to clarify the purpose of the test and the construct being tested, rather than just the goal of providing the student with access to the testing situation" (p.662).

The read aloud questions accommodation remains very controversial and there is little consensus between states as to how and when it should be used. Between 2003 and 2005 more states also put limitations on the use of the sign interpretation of questions accommodation.

Some of the response accommodations that rely on technology remain controversial; but, at least in some cases, they appear to be more widely accepted than in the past. Sixteen states now allow the use of the spell checker accommodation without restriction (four of these call it nonstandard; even if these are not counted, the remaining 12 are far above the five states that allowed spell checkers in 2003). This is the first time that we have specifically analyzed state policies to see if the use of speech/text devices was an allowed accommodation. This emerging technology was addressed in the policies of 18 states-and allowed without restriction in 15.

The extended time accommodation has become less controversial since the last report and most states now allow this accommodation without restriction. There was, however, less consensus between states on whether or not the administration of tests over multiple days is an acceptable accommodation in 2005 than in previous reports. States apparently see a trade-off between the use of the "extended time" accommodation and the "over multiple days" accommodation. States may be concerned about test security issues when the test is administered over multiple days, though for those students with disabilities who tire easily, testing over multiple days may be a more appropriate accommodation than extended time.

In 2005, the policies of fewer states mentioned some commonly provided accommodations than had been included in the past. Several of the setting accommodations that are not generally considered controversial (e.g., separate room, minimize distractions, special education classroom) were less frequently found in policies in 2005 than in past reports. Perhaps states believe that these accommodations are so generally accepted that there is no need to include specific mention of them in the policies-though there is the risk that, without them being explicitly included in the policy, some students may not have access to an accommodation that may be needed.

Participation and accommodation policies continue to evolve-and as noted above, there have been a number of key changes since 2003-but states appear to have a better understanding of key issues than in the past. States seem to better recognize the need to clarify and specify when and how participation policy variables and various accommodations are used. States, however, need to carefully consider the possible implications of deleting participation and accommodation policy variables from policies that might be assumed to be general knowledge or common practice. Some types of technology (e.g., spell checkers, speech/text devices), though still controversial, seem to be more generally accepted than in the past. It is also notable that most states now permit the use of the extended time accommodation with restriction.

States will continue to grapple with many complex concerns and requirements related to accommodations. This analysis indicates that many states have developed participation and accommodation policies that reflect the grappling they have done and that for the time at least should serve them well.