How IEP Teams Make Assessment Accommodation Decisions: Rhode Island

1
How IEP Teams Make Assessment Accommodation
DecisionsRhode Islands Research Findings

• Paul V. Sherlock Center on Disabilities
• at Rhode Island College
• Office of Special Needs
• Office of Assessment
• Rhode Island Department of Education

2
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?

3
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.

4
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.

5
Survey Respondents
Position Percent
Administrator 3
General education teacher 24
Special education teacher 43
Teacher assistant 6
Therapist 7
Parent 4
Other 14
6
How Prepared are IEP Teams to Develop Testing
Accommodations?
7
Pre-service Training

• 55 reported of sample had nothing or only brief
  training in staffs role and responsibility in
  developing accommodations for instruction and
  assessment.
• Among the 104 special educators,
• 57 had no training re the State Assessment
  Program.

8
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)

9
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
10
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)
• Students IEP (7)
• Individual need of student (4)
• Supervisor's guidelines (3)
• Classroom accommodations (2)

11

• 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.

12
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 dont
  have the training or the knowledge. I dont make
  decisions.
• I have never been given information on how to
  assess a special education student, but I have
  requested it.

13
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.

14
Need for Instructional Accommodations

• Review of student performance (34)
• IEP team discussions (32)
• Evaluations of students skills (28)
• Consultation with involved parties (22)
• Based on student needs (19)
• Parent input (12)

15
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)

16
Important Factors in Choosing Assessment
Accommodations?

• Individual need of student (23)
• Student's ability (17)
• Disability and its impact (15)
• Students stress or comfort level (12)
• Reading/writing proficiency (11)
• Same as instructional accommodations (9)
• Distractibility (8)
• Per IEP (8)

17
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 didnt factor at all in their
  decision-making.

18
Most Frequently Recommended and Implemented
Assessment Accommodations

• Extended time
• Alternate location
• Oral administration of directions
• Clarified, repeated directions
• Frequent breaks

19
Accommodation High School Students (N31) IEP OBS High School Students (N31) IEP OBS Mid. School Students (N16) IEP OBS Mid. School Students (N16) IEP OBS Elementary Students (N19) IEP OBS Elementary Students (N19) 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

20
Issues of Institutional Capacity

• Proper training for proctors
• Clear guidelines on individualized accommodations
• Appropriate rooms for testing
• Use of computers and other AT

21
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).

22
2003 Follow Up

• Greater agreement between recommended and
  implemented assessment accommodations for this
  years smaller sample of students (N39)
• Similar to 2002, 2003s 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.

23
Accommodation High School Students (N17) IEP OBS High School Students (N17) IEP OBS Middle School Students (N5) IEP OBS Middle School Students (N5) IEP OBS Elementary Students (N17) IEP OBS Elementary Students (N17) 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

24
Comparison of Accommodations
25
(No Transcript)
26
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.

27
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.