Accommodation Considerations for Assessment:

Case Study of a Middle School

Lizanne DeStefano & James Shriner

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Background and Context

DeStefano & Shriner (1998)DeStefano, Shriner & Lloyd (2001)Shriner (2000)Shriner & DeStefano (2001)Shriner & DeStefano (2003)

OSEP Grant# H324D980070

Project PAR: Participation, Accommodation and Reporting

•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)

Conceptual Framework

• 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?

Project PAR Questions

• 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.

IDEA 1997:IEP/Assessment/Accommodation status

• 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

Summary of Key Findings

• 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.

Caveat and Limitations

• 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

Project IEP-D: Improving Education Professionals’ Decision Making

•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

IEP-D Activities / Considerations

Feeder School Information

Feeder Schools

6 Elementary → 1 Middle School

No Elementary School has Minimum Number of Students with Disabilities to report as AYP subcategory

• 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.

Feeder School Information

• Documented on IEP form

• Minimal information about actual selection, planning and use

• Input of Gen. Ed. Teachers unknown

Accommodation Use

• 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

informationFall ITBS Test Accommodation Data

Focus on Fall ITBS Testing

• 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

Fall ITBS Test Accommodation Data

• 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?

Fall ITBS Accommodation “Findings”

• 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

Fall ITBS Accommodation Issues

• 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?)

Fall Feedback : Decision-Makers

• In-person T.A. during 2nd quarter

• Teams participated in:–In-service–Discussion–Case Studies–Problem Solving

Technical Assistance

• Review IEP-planned accommodations

• Check connection of IEP with Instructional accommodations

• Plans for Spring testing

Fall ITBS Results: Reading/Math

Technical Assistance

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

• General Ed. Environment provided more than “default” accommodations/supports listed in testing manual

• Supportive, NOT Unethical

• No Scheduling changes in Gen. Ed.

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

ISAT Accommodation Results

• 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)

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)

IEP – ISAT Accommodation Agreement

• 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

Actions of School Decision-Makers

Accommodations Monitoring Form

2005 ITBS Testing

Fall 2005 ITBS Testing

• Limited tracking of accommodation plans and use

• Limited awareness/involvement of Gen. Ed. Teachers (despite their overall good work with respect to accommodations)

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.”

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.

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)

Summary and Conclusions