How IEP Teams Make Assessment Accommodation Decisions: Rhode Island’s Research Findings Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities at Rhode Island College.

How IEP Teams Make Assessment Accommodation Decisions:

Rhode Island’s Research Findings

Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilitiesat Rhode Island College

Office of Special NeedsOffice of Assessment

Rhode Island Department of Education

Research Questions

How do IEP Teams make decisions about assessment accommodations?

What is the relationship between:• instructional accommodations

• recommended assessment accommodations (IEPs)

• accommodations used during state assessments?

Methodology• Comprehensive survey mailed to 1200

IEP Team Members; 246 responses (21%).

• Observed 66 students in 9 schools during classroom instruction and state assessment.

• Reviewed 107 IEPs, including those of observed students.

• Interviewed assessment proctors, monitors, administrators.

Major Findings

• Location was the better predictor of accommodations during tests, rather than IEPs.

• Students testing together received same “package” of accommodations, regardless of IEPs.

• Test accommodations were not individualized or developed from students’ instructional accommodations.

Survey Respondents

Position Percent

Administrator 3%

General education teacher 24%

Special education teacher 43%

Teacher assistant 6%

Therapist 7%

Parent 4%

Other 14%

How Prepared are IEP Teams to Develop Testing

Accommodations?

Pre-service Training

• 55% reported of sample had nothing or only brief training in staff’s role and responsibility in developing accommodations for instruction and assessment.

• Among the 104 special educators,

57% had no training re: the State Assessment Program.

Perceived Purpose of Assessments?

• Measure academic progress (23%)

• Compare to general ed peers (22%)

• Accountability (21%)

• Identify needs of students (11%)• Assess student knowledge (8%)

Source of Information for Teams•Paper information (articles, memos, etc.)

49%

•RIDE-sponsored trainings

36%

•In-house trainings run by school personnel

36%

•Pre-service trainings 15%•In-house trainings run by external trainers

6%

•On-going technical assistance in school

6%

Decision-Making Resources• Rhode Island State Assessment Guidebook (44%)

• State Assessment Program Requirements for Student Participation and Assessment Accommodations (40%)

• Guidance from SPED teachers (11%)

• Student’s IEP (7%)

• Individual need of student (4%)

• Supervisor's guidelines (3%)

• Classroom accommodations (2%)

• Follow-through on assessment accommodations was almost always the job of the Special Education department.

• Slightly more than half of sample felt they knew a lot about the variety of possible instructional accommodations (approximately 53%), while 29% felt they had only some awareness.

• Only 43% felt they knew a lot about

assessment accommodations, with 34% claiming they had some awareness of assessment accommodations.

General Educators: Not Full Partners

• I have very little involvement as an IEP team member. My input is rarely sought.

• I am asked to sit in on IEP meetings infrequently. To be honest, most decisions on accommodations are made without my input.

• I do not have a part in this process. I don’t have the training or the knowledge. I don’t make decisions.

• I have never been given information on how to assess a special education student, but I have requested it.

Special Educators

• Accommodations were determined by students’ prior teachers and staff.

• Elementary special educators preferred to proctor/implement for their own students.

• High school students could decline their accommodations; often proctored by staff who did not know the students at all.

Need for Instructional Accommodations

• Review of student performance (34%)

• IEP team discussions (32%)

• Evaluations of student’s skills (28%)

• Consultation with involved parties (22%)

• Based on student needs (19%)

• Parent input (12%)

Need for Assessment Accommodations

• IEP team recommendations (23%)• Current classroom performance (20%)• Follows instructional accommodations

(17%)• Student need (16%)• Performance on other tests (10%)• Teacher input (9%)• Use state guidelines/checklist (7%)

Important Factors in Choosing Assessment Accommodations? • Individual need of student (23%)• Student's ability (17%)• Disability and its impact (15%)• Student’s stress or comfort level (12%)• Reading/writing proficiency (11%)• Same as instructional accommodations

(9%)• Distractibility (8%)• Per IEP (8%)

Percentage of time in General Ed

• According to 30%, the amount of time spent in general education classes was somewhat or very important in decision-making about accommodations

• 20% said this didn’t factor at all in their decision-making.

Most Frequently Recommended and Implemented

Assessment Accommodations • Extended time

• Alternate location

• Oral administration of directions

• Clarified, repeated directions

• Frequent breaks

Accommodation # High School Students (N=31)

IEP OBS

# Mid. School Students

(N=16)

IEP OBS

# Elementary Students(N=19)

IEP OBS

Alternate location

15 22 6 13 13 14

Oral administration of directions

7 20 2 11 12 16

Directions repeated, clarified

10 16 10 12 10 13

Extended time 26 23 12 12 17 19

Frequent breaks 6 0 1 2 7 14

Issues of Institutional Capacity

• Proper training for proctors

• Clear guidelines on individualized accommodations

• Appropriate rooms for testing

• Use of computers and other AT

Instruction and Assessment

• Significant difference between the level of support received during instruction and assessment

• Students may benefit from instructional accommodations but do not receive assessment accommodations in any way comparable.

• Respondents reported basing all accommodations

on “individual need of student” yet few had individualized accommodations during tests (e.g., scribing, readers, flexible schedule).

2003 Follow Up• Greater agreement between recommended and

implemented assessment accommodations for this year’s smaller sample of students (N=39)

• Similar to 2002, 2003’s 5 most commonly recommended assessment accommodations were also the most frequently implemented and most generic.

• Students had on average more instructional

accommodations (5), compared to test accommodations (3).

• Instructional accommodations were more specific and based on individual student needs.

Accommodation # High School Students(N=17)

IEP OBS

# Middle School Students

(N=5) IEP OBS

# Elementary Students(N=17)

IEP OBS

Alternate location 15 17 5 5 17 17

Oral administration of directions

1 17 3 5 3 17

Directions repeated, clarified

3 0 5 5 13 17

Extended time 16 17 5 5 14 17

Frequent breaks 0 0 0 0 14 17

Comparison of Accommodations

Student 4Instructional Accommodations State Testing Accommodations

Extra time to complete work limit number of assignments Scribe 1-2 sentences of written

work to get him started. Modify homework/complete

unfinished work at school. Modify spelling Š 10 words only Limit copying from board. Homework notebook for

organization Seat near teacher away from

distractions

Flexible schedule Extra time small group frequent breaks alternate location directions repeated/clarified

Student 5Instructional Accommodations State Testing Accommodations

Frequent breaks Homework pad for organization Folders for papers to be completed

and finished work. Highlighted key math words in

directions Repeat directions Model different ways to calculate

math problems Highlight operations -, +, x, - cue upcoming transitions Make frequent checks for

comprehension Spelling Š 12 words

Flexible schedule extra time quiet testing area free from distraction

Conclusions• Proctors not sure how to implement

accommodations such as scribing or support.

• Student-centered assessment accommodations – scribing, reading assistance, 1-on-1 support– required resources and preparation that schools did not produce.

• Assessment accommodations that parallel instructional accommodations not available to students during state assessments.

Possible Ideas• Provide additional state-sponsored training for

proctoring staff, not just administration (test security, etc.)

• Hold school-based sessions with leadership personnel to clarify “what is permitted.”

• Develop IEPs during same school year in which student will participate in state assessments. Insure that both classroom and assessment personnel participate.

• Promote individualized accommodations that approximate instructional support during assessments.