1. Accommodation Considerations for Assessment: Case Study of a Middle School Lizanne DeStefano & James Shriner University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

2. Background and Context

3. DeStefano & Shriner (1998) DeStefano, Shriner & Lloyd (2001) Shriner (2000) Shriner & DeStefano (2001) Shriner & DeStefano (2003) OSEP Grant# H324D980070 Project PAR: Participation, Accommodation and Reporting

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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 3 rd grade, Gen. Ed. Feeder School Information

13. Documented on IEP form Minimal information about actual selection, planning and use Input of Gen. Ed. Teachers unknown Accommodation Use

14. 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 information Fall ITBS Test Accommodation Data Focus on Fall ITBS Testing

15. 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

16. 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”

17. 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

18. 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

19. In-person T.A. during 2 nd quarter Teams participated in: –In-service –Discussion –Case Studies –Problem Solving Technical Assistance

20. Review IEP-planned accommodations Check connection of IEP with Instructional accommodations Plans for Spring testing Fall ITBS Results: Reading/Math Technical Assistance

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 2005 ITBS Testing Fall 2005 ITBS Testing

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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